jio_delete_album

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses dry_run default, the need for confirm=true for real deletion, the board-specific network call (PUT /invites/boards/{id}/unjoin), and that board deletion does not trash Drive files. This provides crucial behavioral context beyond the schema and clearly sets expectations.

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 three sentences with zero fluff: it front-loads the main purpose, then packs essential mode differences, safety flags, and side-effect distinctions. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough operational detail for an agent to invoke the tool correctly: which kind to choose, the required confirmation for actual deletion, the default dry-run safety, and the non-destructive nature for board deletes. It is complete enough to avoid hazardous side effects.

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 0%, so the description compensates. It explains kind semantics (folder vs board), the role of dry_run and confirm, and references objectKey/boardKey which clarifies how ids are interpreted. The only gap is that it doesn't explicitly restate that 'ids' is the array of album identifiers, but the overall mapping is inferable from the kind-specific language.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete albums') and clearly distinguishes two deletion modes (folder vs board), which differentiates it from sibling tools like jio_delete_files. It explicitly contrasts behavior for each kind, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 explains when to use each mode: 'kind=folder moves folder album(s) to Trash' and 'kind=board deletes/leaves native board albums'. It also specifies the safety mechanism (dry_run default, confirm required). However, it never explicitly names alternative tools or states when not to use this tool versus jio_delete_files, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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