Delete product

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: the underlying native endpoint (DELETE /products/:id), the required OAuth scope (edit_products), and a mandatory per-call confirmation step. It stops short of saying whether deletion is reversible or what happens to dependent licenses/sales.

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?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with the action, then scope, then precondition. No filler. It could be marginally tighter but nothing is wasted.

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 single-required-param destructive tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the two things structure cannot: the auth scope and the confirmation requirement. The missing piece is reversibility/soft-delete contrast with disable_product.

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 three parameters (account, confirm, product_id) are already documented in the schema, including the confirm semantics and the opaque ID format. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Delete product') that an agent can act on immediately. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling disable_product, which is the natural ambiguity for a destructive-vs-soft-delete pair.

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?

'Requires explicit per-call confirmation' is real usage guidance about a precondition, but the description never says when to choose this over disable_product or enable_product. The most consequential routing decision for this tool family is left to inference.

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