delete_pvc_voice_sample

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive, idempotent write. The description adds nothing beyond the name: it doesn't state what gets destroyed, whether it's recoverable, or any rate/permission constraints. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description still fails to add any behavioral context.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, which is efficient, but it is under-specified rather than truly concise. The single phrase carries no useful information beyond the name, so brevity here reflects a lack of content rather than tight writing.

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 destructive deletion tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what a PVC voice sample is, the relationship to voice_id, and any irreversibility. It omits all of this, leaving annotations and schema to carry the full burden. Inadequate for a destructive operation.

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%, and both voice_id and sample_id are documented in the schema (voice_id even includes the endpoint to list voices). The description repeats the term 'sample' but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 restates the tool name in title case, giving the verb+resource ('delete' + 'Pvc Voice Sample'). It conveys the purpose but is essentially a tautology of the name with no additional differentiation from siblings like delete_sample, edit_pvc_voice_sample, or delete_voice.

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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions, no alternative tools named. An agent must infer from the name alone that this deletes a sample belonging to a PVC voice, with no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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