Delete favorites

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the output shape per item, the fact that placed elements are not affected, and the Teamwork reservation requirement — none of which the annotations convey.

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 compact sentences: the action and its scope first, then the return contract, then the prerequisite. No filler, and the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the per-item result shape (deleted: true or error) and the Teamwork prerequisite. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior on partial failure across a 500-name batch.

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% for the single 'names' parameter, including the exact-name/localized note and the get_favorites cross-reference, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'by exact name' merely echoes the schema and adds no new parameter meaning.

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+resource ('Deletes favorites') with the key scoping qualifier that placed elements are unaffected, which distinguishes it from the element-deletion tools in the sibling list. It doesn't explicitly name its closest siblings (apply_favorite, rename_favorite, get_favorites), so it stops short of a 5.

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 a concrete prerequisite for Teamwork workflows ('reserve the Favorites object set first') and implies the names must come from get_favorites. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over rename_favorite or apply_favorite, but the operational context is clear.

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