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 the annotations do not carry: a 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop rate limit. It stops short of saying whether removals are reversible or partial failures are possible, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 elements with no filler. The rate-limit notice is placed first, which is arguably a less important lead than the destructive action itself, but the action sentence is tight and readable.

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 6-parameter destructive tool with a nested payload object and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the rate limit but is silent on the interaction between payload, payload_file and the top-level imageUrls, and says nothing about the confirm safeguard. The schema carries that burden, so the description is adequate rather than complete.

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 all six parameters, including the confirm, payload, payload_file and imageUrls variants, are already documented. The description only restates that removal is by URL, adding no syntax, format or conflict-resolution detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Removes) and resource (images from a product) plus the identifying mechanism (by their URLs). An agent can immediately tell this is a mutation on product media. It does not name the sibling attach_product_images, so it stops short of full differentiation, but the name and description are unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this versus attach_product_images or list_media_images, and no mention of prerequisites such as the confirm flag or the need for an existing product. The rate-limit line implies usage context but does not route the agent between alternatives.

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