jio_delete_duplicates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the default dry_run=true and the requirement for confirm=true to perform a real delete. This adds important safety context beyond the schema. However, it does not explain whether the trash is recoverable, permissions needed, or other consequences of deletion, so it is not fully transparent.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by critical safety flags. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must cover essential semantics. It addresses safety flags but neglects to explain how to use groupIds (the likely selection mechanism) or what 'trash' entails. An agent would likely struggle to specify the right candidates without additional info. Compared to similar mutation tools, completeness is low.

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 coverage is only 25% (only 'all' has a description). The tool description adds meaning for dry_run and confirm by explaining their combined behavior, but it does not explain the 'groupIds' parameter or how to select specific candidates. It partially compensates for the low schema coverage but leaves a significant gap for a key parameter.

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 action ('Trash delete-candidates') and the specific resource context ('from the last jio_find_duplicates run'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like jio_delete_files and jio_delete_album. It is a specific verb+resource statement with no ambiguity.

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 provides clear usage context by referencing the prerequisite jio_find_duplicates run and the safety conditions for real deletion (dry_run=false, confirm=true). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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