delete_dubbing

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and readOnly=false, providing the safety profile structurally. The description adds no context about what is deleted, whether associated data is cascaded, or any permission requirements, so it offers nothing beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a destructive tool, making its brevity insufficient rather than structurally strong.

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?

With one parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the structured data covers much of the invocation surface. Still, the description fails to clarify which dubbing resource is deleted or how it differs from similar delete siblings, which is context an agent needs for safe selection.

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?

The single required parameter dubbing_id has 100% schema description coverage ('ID of the dubbing project.'). The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 is a verbatim restatement of the name and title ('Delete Dubbing'), so it provides no information beyond what the tool name already conveys. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as dubbing_project_delete, dubbing_language_delete, or dubbing_transcript_segment_delete.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. For a destructive delete operation, routing guidance is especially important, yet the description says nothing beyond the operation name.

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