studio_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: irreversible deletion, the 1–100 ref batching limit, per-kind routing (text notes batch; artifacts and mind maps route individually), the returned 'deleted'/'not_found' arrays, and the idempotent-success rule for an absent single ID. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before committing a destructive write.

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?

Front-loaded with the delete-and-irreversibility warning, and nearly every clause carries operational weight (XOR rule, batch limits, routing, return shape, idempotency). The telegraphic 'Names/IDs resolve over Studio' sentence is the only fragment that costs a little clarity for compactness.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully summarizes the batch return shape. Combined with annotations covering safety and the description covering ref limits, routing-by-kind, and idempotency, an agent has everything needed to call this destructive tool correctly.

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 load and largely does: it explains the item XOR items mutual exclusion, the 1–100 reference cap, the meaning of canonical notebook_id and full item IDs, and the confirm flag's requirement of full IDs for batches. Remaining ambiguity is minor (e.g., what 'confirm' defaults to, name-vs-ID resolution failure modes).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete notes/artifacts') with the critical scope qualifier 'irreversibly'. The item-XOR-items constraint immediately signals this is the single deletion path for Studio content, distinguishing it from sibling mutation tools like studio_rename, studio_retry, and studio_generate.

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?

Gives real operating procedure: 'Preview first; confirm with canonical notebook_id and item ID(s)' plus the batch rule that confirmation requires full IDs. It stops short of naming the preview/list sibling tool explicitly, so the agent must infer the preview step rather than being routed to it.

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