delete_question_banks

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

Even though destructiveHint=true already flags danger, the description goes far beyond annotations by enumerating exactly what is deleted, removed, and untouched, including the critical side effect that quizzes become silently unbounded but remain deliverable. It also discloses permission requirements and instructs the agent to warn the user first.

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 longer than average, but every section earns its place: front-loaded summary, clear parameter instruction, bulleted side effects, and permission/consent guidance. The structure makes the destructive consequences immediately scannable.

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 destructive nature and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete: it covers the parameter, the full cascade of effects, what remains untouched, required capabilities, and the need for explicit user consent. No critical invocation information is missing.

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 must carry the weight. It adds meaningful detail by explaining that question_bank_ids is a list of obfuscated Skilljar bank ids, and the phrase 'one or more' clarifies batch semantics. It could go further on id format or validation, but for a single parameter this is solid.

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 'Delete one or more question banks,' a specific verb and resource, and immediately adds that it is destructive and batch. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling delete tools like delete_questions and delete_quizzes by naming the exact object type being deleted.

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 gives strong context: it is a batch operation, requires explicit user instruction, and requires specific capabilities. However, it does not explicitly mention a non-destructive alternative like unbind_quiz_question_banks when the goal is only to detach quizzes from a bank.

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