beta_feedback_screenshot_submissions_delete_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the implicit destructiveness of DELETE. It does not say whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what related data (screenshots, feedback context) is removed, what permissions are required, or whether the call is idempotent.

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 short but the same HTTP path is duplicated inside parentheses, adding zero information. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy of expression.

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 an unannotated destructive operation with no output schema, an agent needs to know at minimum that this permanently removes a beta feedback screenshot submission and what authorization/app-scoping it requires. None of that is present, leaving the definition inadequate for a mutation tool.

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% and there is a single required path parameter documented as "the id of the requested resource", so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about the id — no format, no source guidance (e.g. how to obtain it) — so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 text is an HTTP method plus path ("DELETE /v1/betaFeedbackScreenshotSubmissions/{id}"), which is a verbatim restatement of the tool name rather than an explanation of what the tool does in domain terms. It conveys no information an agent couldn't already derive from the identifier, and it does not distinguish this delete from the many sibling delete operations.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling delete tools (e.g. beta_feedback_crash_submissions_delete_instance) or of alternatives such as leaving the submission intact. The agent is given nothing to route on.

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