delete_recording

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the irreversibility bar is met structurally; the description adds substantive context beyond that: no trash, no undo, the full blast radius of deleted artifacts, and the required credential scope (recordings:delete via `clipy login --allow-delete`). This is meaningful extra information an agent cannot derive from the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences: the destructive effect is front-loaded, followed by the safety precondition and then the credential requirement. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, everything an agent needs is present: what is destroyed, irreversibility, the gating condition, the confirm requirement, and the authorization scope.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds semantics the schema does not: `confirm` functions as a deliberate safety interlock tied to the user's explicit request, not just a duplicated string.

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 ('delete') and resource ('a recording'), and enumerates exactly what is destroyed (video, transcript, summary, key moments, comments). An agent can distinguish this from sibling mutations like update_recording, edit_recording or set_recording_privacy immediately.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Only call this when the user explicitly asked to delete this specific recording') and a required procedural step ('repeat its id in confirm'). Both when-to-use and the confirmation ritual are spelled out rather than inferred.

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