delete_speech_history_item

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on permanence, whether the underlying audio is removed, or any confirmation requirement.

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 three-word phrase is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficient communication; nothing is said that the title does not already say.

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 schema documents the ID and the annotations cover safety and idempotency, so the essentials are present. However, given that this permanently deletes user content, the description should at minimum reinforce irreversibility or point at the retrieval step.

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 the schema itself explains history_item_id and even points to the GET /v1/history endpoint for retrieving IDs. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 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?

"Delete History Item" states a verb and a resource, so the basic action is clear, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not distinguish it from the many other delete_* siblings (e.g. delete_audio_isolation_history_item) or clarify what a "history item" is in this API.

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 versus alternatives such as get_speech_history_item_by_id, download_speech_history_items, or delete_audio_isolation_history_item. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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