Delete variant

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds real context beyond annotations: the required OAuth scope (edit_products) and the per-call confirmation requirement, which matter given the non-idempotent destructive hint.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the operational constraints. Slightly terse but every sentence carries weight; no padding.

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?

Covers action, scope, and confirmation for a destructive mutation tool with no output schema. It leaves out what happens to dependent variants/categories on delete and whether the operation is reversible, which would matter given idempotentHint=false.

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 parameter meaning (opaque IDs, confirm, account) is already fully documented. The description adds nothing on parameters beyond the endpoint path, so 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 (delete) and resource (variant) and even names the underlying native endpoint, so an agent can distinguish it from delete_variant_category, delete_product, and update_variant without ambiguity.

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?

Specifies the required scope (edit_products) and the confirmation requirement, which effectively route agents away from calling it casually. However, it doesn't explicitly reference sibling alternatives like delete_variant_category or explain when to prefer a disable over a delete.

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