Permanently delete a product from the inventory catalog by providing its unique identifier.
Permanently delete or remove a product from the Chirak inventory catalog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Product UUID to delete (required). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Result data payload from Chirak API. | |
| success | No | Status of the tool execution. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds 'Permanently', which signals irreversibility beyond the generic destructive hint. This extra context is valuable. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does with no filler. 'Permanently delete' is placed first, immediately conveying the critical destructive nature.
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 tool is simple: one required parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile. The description adds permanence context and names the target resource. Nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.
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 description provides no parameter-specific details, but the schema has 100% coverage with a clear description: 'Product UUID to delete (required).' The schema carries the burden, 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?
The description states a clear verb-resource pair: 'delete or remove a product from the Chirak inventory catalog.' The resource (product) distinguishes it from the sibling delete_customer, and the operation distinguishes it from add_product/update_product. No 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?
The intended usage is directly implied by the verb 'delete', so an agent can infer when to call it. However, there is no explicit guidance about alternatives (e.g., using update_product to deactivate instead, or adjust_stock to reduce inventory without removal) or any exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.