studio_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses irreversibility and the need for confirmation, which are critical behavioral traits. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects beyond deletion, or output details, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 with only two sentences, no redundant words, and the most critical information (irreversibility, confirmation requirement) front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool is a simple delete operation and output schema exists, the description covers essential points: action, irreversibility, and confirmation. It could be more complete by mentioning preconditions (e.g., artifact must exist) or success behavior, but is adequate for the low complexity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, merely restating that confirm must be true. The schema already describes each parameter sufficiently.

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 clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'studio artifact', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like studio_create, studio_revise, and studio_status, which cover create, revise, and status operations.

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?

The description explicitly notes that the operation is irreversible and requires confirm=True, guiding agents to use it only with user approval. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives (e.g., studio_revise for modifications).

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