Delete a product

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral nuance: it deletes variants as well, and subscription products with active subscribers are archived instead of deleted. This goes beyond the basic destructive flag and helps the agent anticipate side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences convey the core action and an important exception without extra filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the key behavior, the variant side effect, and the subscription archive exception. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it could have explicitly mentioned idempotency behavior.

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% and both parameters are already described clearly in the schema. The description does not add new meaning to the parameters, but the schema fully carries that burden.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete'), the resource ('a product'), and the scope ('and its variants from the store'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling variant-level delete tool by explicitly including variants.

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 implies the tool is for removing a product and its variants, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over related tools such as ecommerce_deleteAProductVariantV1 or ecommerce_updateAProductV1. It does provide a conditional exception for subscription products with active subscribers, which offers some usage-relevant context.

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