delete_category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses irreversibility, permanent deletion, that products are unaffected but their category association is removed, and potential impact on subcategories. It also names the exact API endpoint and return structure, giving the agent a complete picture of the operation's behavior.

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?

The description is well-structured with labeled sections (用途, API, 回傳結構, 副作用) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every section provides valuable information with no filler or redundancy, making it efficiently sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description is complete for a destructive one-parameter tool. It includes the return structure explicitly since no output schema exists, covers all side effects, and provides sufficient context for safe invocation. It lacks only auth/rate-limit details, which are not essential here.

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 coverage is 100% with the parameter clearly described as '分類 ID'. The description adds the API path 'DELETE /v1/categories/{category_id}', which confirms category_id is a path parameter, but it does not add significant semantics about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: '永久刪除指定分類' (permanently delete specified category) from Shopline. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_category, update_category, and get_category_detail by focusing on deletion. The additional note about suitability for clearing deactivated or mistake-created categories further clarifies the intended use.

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?

The description provides a clear use case: '適合清除已停用或錯誤建立的分類' (suitable for clearing deactivated or mistakenly created categories). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives (e.g., update_category for reversible changes), so it falls short of a 5.

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