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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial detail beyond them: the original, main output, and every resized/converted file are erased, the batch.deleted webhook fires, and there is no undo. It also states the return payload (id, slug, project), which is exactly the kind of operational context an agent needs before an irreversible call.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: trigger first, then consequences, then the exclusion. The irreversible nature is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 covers trigger, blast radius, side effects (webhook), reversibility, and return shape. Even though an output schema exists, the extra mention of the returned fields is harmless, and nothing an agent needs to call this safely 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents batchId fully. The description adds the notion of operating on exactly one batch but no format, sourcing, or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

States a specific verb (permanently delete) and resource (one Imagelato processed-image batch and its associated files), and explicitly carves out what it is not for ('Not for removing a resize preset'). This lets an agent distinguish it from get_batch and list_batches without opening any schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user wants to permanently delete...'), giving clear context for invocation. It also supplies a when-not clause about resize presets, though it names the excluded action rather than a sibling tool to use instead, so routing is slightly less complete than a fully explicit alternative.

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