studio_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the irreversible nature of the operation ('IRREVERSIBLE') and the confirmation requirement, which are critical behavioral traits for a destructive operation that aren't captured in the input schema.

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 efficient with zero wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and critical warnings, followed by a clean parameter explanation section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, warnings, and parameters. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. One minor gap is not mentioning what 'studio artifact' specifically refers to in this context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: notebook_id is described as 'Notebook UUID', artifact_id as 'Artifact UUID (from studio_status)', and confirm as 'Must be True after user approval'. This provides essential semantic context beyond the bare schema types.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('studio artifact'), distinguishing it from siblings like notebook_delete or source_delete by specifying the exact type of artifact being deleted. It provides precise scope information that differentiates it from other deletion tools.

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 states when to use this tool ('Delete studio artifact') and includes critical prerequisites ('Requires confirm=True after user approval'), providing clear guidance on the confirmation requirement that must be met before invocation.

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