delete_images

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond that: the operation is staged rather than immediate, and omitting image_id escalates the blast radius to every image of that type. Missing are error behavior for unknown ids and whether staging is reversible before commit.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the bulk-delete condition placed where it will be read. No filler and nothing to trim.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with five undocumented parameters and no output schema, this is thin. The agent still lacks the targeting model (edit_id vs package_name), the meaning of image_type beyond the enum list, and confirmation that a commit step is required for the deletion to take effect.

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 0% across 5 parameters, and the description only explains image_id. It says nothing about the required language and image_type enum (8 values), nor about how edit_id and package_name alternate as the targeting scope — arguably the most consequential parameter decision in the call.

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 ("stages deleting") and resource ("image") plus the scope variation (single id vs all of a type), which is precise enough to distinguish it from list_images and upload_images. It does not explicitly contrast with delete_edit, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 gives one real usage rule — omit image_id to target every image of the type — which is genuinely actionable. It says nothing about when to choose this over delete_edit, what edit_id vs package_name targeting means, or that the change presumably requires a subsequent commit_edit, so the agent must infer the surrounding workflow.

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