cueprecise_purge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing destructive behavior. It does state that deletion is explicit and that 'chunks' data can be recreated from original audio, which is useful. However, it does not warn that raw/video/all scopes may cause unrecoverable data loss or describe any additional side effects.

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 brief and well-structured, with the core action stated first followed by a compact scope reference. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is too incomplete. It lacks information about irreversibility, authorization requirements, return values, and the precise meaning of several scope values. An agent could not confidently call this tool with the riskiest scopes based solely on this definition.

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 compensate. It explains the default scope and partially clarifies 'chunks', but it does not describe 'video_id' at all and leaves 'video', 'raw', and 'all' scopes semantically ambiguous. The enum values are listed in the schema, but the description adds only minimal clarification.

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 a clear action, '영상 자료를 명시적으로 삭제한다' (explicitly deletes video material), and enumerates the affected scopes. Among the sibling tools, none are deletion-oriented, so this tool is clearly distinguished by its destructive purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools, prerequisites, or conditions for safe use, only defines what the scopes mean. The regenerability note for chunks implies one usage consideration but does not constitute usage guidance.

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