ghl_product_delete

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the endpoint '/products/{productId}' and OAuth scopes 'products.write,' which provide additional behavioral context. However, it does not disclose cascade effects, error handling, or what happens if the product does not exist, so it adds moderate value beyond 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?

The description is relatively short but redundant: the first sentence repeats the title. It includes endpoint and scopes, which are useful, but the repetition wastes words. Overall concise but could be tighter.

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 simple delete operation, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the effect of the optional sendWishlistStatus parameter, error scenarios, or whether deletion cascades to related records. The schema description for productId is inconsistent with deletion. No output schema exists, so the description should cover return behavior, but it does not.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema itself documents all three parameters. The tool description does not add any parameter-level details beyond implying productId is the identifier. It fails to address the misleading schema description for productId ('ID or the slug of the product that needs to be returned' suggests a read operation, not delete). Thus, the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics.

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 tool name 'ghl_product_delete' and title 'Delete Product by ID' clearly indicate the action. The description explicitly states 'Delete Product by ID' and 'deleting a specific product using its unique identifier,' making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling product tools like ghl_product_create or ghl_product_get by focusing on deletion, but does not explicitly differentiate from other delete tools.

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 only states 'Use this endpoint to remove a product from the system,' providing basic guidance. It offers no when-to-use vs alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use. Given siblings include other product operations and many delete tools, this minimal guidance is insufficient.

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