bulk_delete_assets

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It honestly discloses the destructive nature (deletion), partial success handling, and the synthetic bridge-side nature. It does not detail the exact result structure, but the return of per-path results and aggregate counts is mentioned.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with essential purpose, then behavioral detail. Every sentence serves a clear purpose without redundancy. Very concise and well-structured.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description only vaguely mentions 'per-path results plus aggregate counts' without specifying the structure. Given the tool's complexity (batch operation with potential partial failures), a more detailed result format would improve completeness. However, the behavioral aspects are adequately covered.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds value by explaining the continue_on_error flag in context of partial success ('partial success is normal'), which goes beyond the schema's description. It also reiterates path normalization rules.

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 it deletes multiple assets via a bridge handler, distinguishing it from single delete_asset and other bulk operations. Specific verb 'Delete', resource 'multiple assets', and mechanism 'composing the delete_asset C++ handler bridge-side' make the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explains the default behavior (continue on error) and how to change it via continue_on_error=false, providing some usage context. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus other bulk operations (e.g., bulk_move_assets) or when deletion might be inappropriate (e.g., assets referenced elsewhere).

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