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

The description says 'Apaga' (delete), which implies destructive behavior, yet annotations set destructiveHint to false, creating a contradiction. Beyond that, it does not disclose consequences, permissions, or irreversibility. The bulk support note is included but insufficient for full transparency.

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?

Very concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the core action. However, the brevity sacrifices necessary detail, and the structure could be improved with a clear sentence order.

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 lacks essential context: no return value description, no success/failure indicators, no edge cases. Given four parameters and no output schema, more completeness is needed.

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 0%, and description only mentions 'notebook_ids, artifact_ids for batched execution' without explaining the required single parameters (notebook_id, artifact_id) or their roles. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 tool deletes an artifact and mentions bulk support, which aligns with the name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other delete tools (e.g., notebook_delete, source_delete), but the context of artifact-specific operations makes it clear enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The only hint is bulk support, but without context on when batch deletion is appropriate.

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