delete_transcript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, rate limits, or response behavior. The mention of 'bulk-delete' hints at batch processing, but no further context is given. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded and concise, using a single sentence that efficiently combines the API endpoint, action, and parameters. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as error handling, confirmation requirements, or what happens post-deletion. Siblings like 'get_transcript' suggest read operations, but no integration guidance is provided. More detail is needed for safe and effective use.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for 'ids' and 'video_id'. The description adds minimal value by mentioning deletion 'by ids or by video_id', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or usage trade-offs. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Delete transcripts') and the resource ('transcripts'), and specifies the method ('POST /api/v1/transcripts/bulk-delete') and deletion criteria ('by ids or by video_id'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_transcript' or 'list_transcripts' by being a deletion operation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more explicit about sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions deletion criteria but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g., when to use 'ids' vs 'video_id', or if there are restrictions). With siblings like 'get_transcript' and 'list_transcripts', there is no explicit comparison or usage context provided.

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