delete_product_variation

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it explicitly says '永久刪除' (permanent deletion) and '不可復原' (irreversible), warns that deleting the only variation may make the product unpurchasable, and states that the frontend removes the spec option immediately. This is exceptional transparency for a destructive operation.

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 clear sections for purpose, API endpoint, return structure, and side effects. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the core action immediately. There is no redundant content.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly states the return structure (dict with success, resource_id, message), the API endpoint, and all relevant side effects. It is complete for a destructive mutation tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (product_id as '商品內部 ID' and variation_id as '變體內部 ID'). The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with '[WRITE] 刪除商品變體' which clearly states the action (delete) and resource (product variation), and then elaborates the purpose: permanently deleting specific variations for discontinuing specs or cleaning up errors. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_product or update_product_variation.

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 states when to use: '適用於停售特定規格或清理錯誤變體' (applicable for discontinuing specific specs or cleaning erroneous variations). It also warns about the unique-variation case where deletion may make the product unpurchasable. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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