studio_delete

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by detailing the two-step confirmation flow, idempotency for absent full IDs, routing behavior, and the artifact-delete nuance that it clears a note-backed mind map rather than hard-removing it. This adds significant insight into the tool's runtime behavior and edge cases.

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 dense but every sentence adds necessary information: purpose, routing, confirmation flow, idempotency, and artifact-specific behavior. It is well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then escalating into edge cases without any filler.

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 complexity (two-step confirmation, type routing, idempotency, and artifact clearing semantics), the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the full workflow, expected inputs, and subtle behaviors. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be detailed, but even without it, the description is self-sufficient.

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?

The input schema has zero parameter descriptions, but the description explains all three parameters: 'notebook' as a name or ID, 'item' as a name-or-id ref resolved over the merged notes+artifacts list, and 'confirm' with its default false behavior leading to a preview. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 'Delete a Studio item (irreversible) — a text note OR an artifact.' This specifies the exact action (delete), the resource (Studio item), the scope (notes or artifacts), and the irreversible nature. It distinguishes the tool from sibling delete tools by focusing on Studio items and their dual types.

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 provides clear operational context: it accepts notebooks and items, routes by resolved type, and explains the two-step confirmation. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusion conditions (e.g., 'use source_delete for sources instead'). The context is strong but lacks explicit naming of alternatives.

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