ghl_product_review_delete

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the deletion behavior is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., whether deletion is reversible, cascading effects, or idempotency). It is consistent with annotations but provides no added value beyond them.

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 short and to the point, with minimal redundancy. It includes the endpoint and OAuth scopes, which are not strictly necessary but add context without excessive verbosity. It could be slightly more efficient by removing the endpoint line, but overall it is well-structured.

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 covers the basic action but lacks completeness. There is no mention of the response format (important since no output schema), no mention of required permissions beyond OAuth scopes, and no link to related operations. For a simple delete, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 high (75%), and the description does not add any information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. For example, the purpose of altId and altType is not explained. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 title and description clearly state this tool deletes a specific product review. It is not a tautology and provides the verb 'Delete' and resource 'Product Review'. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like ghl_product_review_update or ghl_product_review_bulk_update, so it lacks differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or mention siblings like ghl_product_review_list or ghl_product_review_update. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding between review-related tools.

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