Delete soundboard sound

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses that the first call is non-destructive, returns a preview and confirm_token, and only the second call with the token actually deletes. This is critical behavioral context that prevents accidental deletion and aligns with safe invocation patterns.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word earns its place. It conveys both what the tool does and the critical two-step behavior without any fluff or repetition.

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 tool's destructive nature and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key behavior an agent needs to know: the safe two-step call sequence. It also clarifies safety in a way that is not inferable from annotations, making it complete for this tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 50% (guild and sound have descriptions, but dry_run and confirm_token do not). The description adds meaning to confirm_token by explaining its role in the deletion flow, but it does not explain the dry_run parameter or its relationship to the preview step. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves one parameter ambiguous.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Delete a soundboard sound,' clearly identifying the tool's function. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_soundboard_sounds, create_soundboard_sound, and update_soundboard_sound, which are all different operations on the same resource.

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 explains the two-step usage pattern: call once for preview/token, then repeat with token to delete. This is clear when-to-use guidance for the tool's core flow. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the name and context make the primary use case obvious.

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