Remove images from a product

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a concrete operational constraint (100 requests / 10 seconds per shop with a docs link), which is genuine value beyond the schema, but it says nothing about reversibility, partial-failure behavior, or what happens when URLs don't match.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences; the rate limit is front-loaded and the purpose follows immediately. Nothing is padded, though the rate-limit line arguably belongs in a shared constraints section rather than this tool's description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation over a nested payload with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and rate limit but omits outcomes: no mention of what the response indicates, whether removed images can be restored, or how the mutually exclusive payload/payload_file/confirm options should be chosen. Adequate, with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description restates the imageUrls concept but adds no format, count-limit, or matching-rule detail beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Removes specified images from a product') and clarifies the identification mechanism (by their URLs). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling attach_product_images, though it never names the counterpart explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as attach_product_images. The only contextual statement is a rate limit, which is a constraint rather than usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.