dubbing_language_delete

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: it does not say what is destroyed alongside the language target (transcripts, dubbed audio), whether deletion is reversible, or what authorization is required.

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?

Four words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero padding. It is concise, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description should at minimum state the blast radius of the deletion and any precondition. As written, an agent cannot tell whether deleting a language target also removes its transcript or dubbed output, which is material before invoking a destructive tool.

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%, with both project_id and language_id fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional meaning about the identifiers or their expected format.

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 names a specific verb (Delete) and resource (Dubbing Language Target), so the operation is identifiable. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, and offers no scope or differentiation from siblings like delete_dubbing, dubbing_project_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 versus the other dubbing deletion tools, nor any stated prerequisites. The agent is left to infer that this removes a language target within a project and nothing more.

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