delete_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 safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that: no statement about irreversibility, required voice ownership, or whether the sample's audio is purged. No contradiction, but no added value either.

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?

Two words with zero waste, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight writing. There is no front-loaded useful information to preserve.

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?

This is a destructive, non-read-only mutation with no output schema and no description of consequences, confirmation requirements, or failure modes. For an irreversible delete, the definition is far too thin for an agent to invoke it safely.

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%, so both voice_id and sample_id are documented in the schema (including how to list valid values), making 3 the baseline. The description contributes nothing about the required pairing of the two IDs or how sample_id is scoped to voice_id.

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?

"Delete Sample" restates the tool name and title without elaboration. It gives no indication of what a sample belongs to (a voice), which matters here because siblings such as delete_pvc_voice_sample and delete_audio_isolation_history_item are also 'delete a sample-like thing' tools. An agent gets verb+resource but nothing to distinguish this from them.

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, prerequisites, or alternative routing is provided. The description never explains how this differs from delete_pvc_voice_sample or delete_voice, so the agent must guess based on the name and required parameters alone.

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