Delete Library item

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. 'Cannot be undone' restates irreversibility in plain language but adds nothing about scope (does it remove jobs, history, or folder membership?), auth requirements, or cascade behavior. The confirm-gate is documented only in the schema, not the description.

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?

A single seven-word sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource and free of filler. It is appropriately tight, though for a destructive, confirm-gated tool the terseness slides toward under-specification rather than genuine economy.

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 non-idempotent destructive operation with no output schema and one fully undocumented parameter, the description omits the preconditions that matter: the assetId source, the required confirm=true gate, and what (if anything) is returned. An agent could not call this correctly from the description alone.

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 50%: only 'confirm' is documented in the schema, while 'assetId' has no description anywhere. The description says 'a Library item' but never identifies assetId as that identifier, nor gives its format or where to obtain it (e.g., from axcel_library_list), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a Library item'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close siblings axcel_history_delete, axcel_folder_delete, or axcel_library_move, so an agent must infer which deletion target applies from the name alone.

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?

No when-to-use criteria, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or when deletion is inappropriate. The parenthetical '(cannot be undone)' is a warning rather than routing guidance, leaving the agent to guess how this differs from deleting a history entry or a folder.

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