Studio Delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds substantial depth beyond them: irreversibility, the batch-confirmation requirement for full IDs, the batching-versus-per-item routing for text notes vs artifacts (including mind maps), the deleted/not_found response arrays, and the idempotent-success behavior for a missing single full ID. This is well beyond what 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?

Front-loads the destructive scope and XOR constraint in the first line, then adds workflow and return behavior in short, information-dense sentences. No filler; every sentence carries a distinct constraint.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, yet the description still notes the deleted/not_found arrays as useful context. Combined with the XOR rule, preview/confirm workflow, routing behavior, and idempotency note, an agent has everything needed to invoke this destructive tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does for most: item XOR items with a 1-100 ref bound, the requirement to confirm with canonical notebook_id and item IDs, and the batch-confirmation constraint. The notebook parameter itself is only implied via 'resolve over Studio' rather than directly explained, leaving a minor 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 notes/artifacts irreversibly') and scopes it to Studio content, which separates it from the sibling source_delete and notebook_delete tools. An agent can identify the target domain without opening the schema.

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 workflow ('Preview first; confirm with canonical notebook_id and item ID(s)') and the item XOR items rule, which is actionable usage guidance. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., why studio_delete vs notebook_delete), but the scope of notes/artifacts makes the boundary reasonably clear.

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