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

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent hints, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: permanent deletion, inclusion of original/output/resized/reformatted files, the fired 'batch.deleted' webhook, and the required user confirmation. This goes well beyond the bare annotation flags without contradicting 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?

Three tightly written sentences cover the deletion scope, irreversibility, webhook side effect, and user-confirmation requirement. There is no filler, redundancy, or repetition of structured schema fields.

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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description plus annotations and output schema fully cover what an agent needs: what is deleted, side effects, irreversibility, the confirmation step, and where to source the batch id. Return value behavior does not need to be described because an output schema exists.

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 description coverage is 100%; batchId is already documented with exact-id semantics and a source hint ('obtain it from list_batches or get_batch'). The tool description reinforces 'exact id' but contributes no new parameter-level syntax or format details. The schema carries the parameter burden, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Permanently delete'), a precise resource ('one tenant-scoped Imagelato batch by exact id'), and the deletion scope ('original, primary output, and resized or reformatted files'). It clearly distinguishes delete_batch from its siblings because none of the listed siblings is a delete operation.

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 gives an actionable precondition: 'Confirm the exact batch with the user before invoking.' The schema further reinforces usage by saying the id should be obtained from list_batches or get_batch. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but since it is the only delete-batch sibling, this is a minor gap.

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