delete_album

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden — and meets it. 'permanently deletes the album (cannot be undone)' discloses irreversibility, and the NOT-deleted photos caveat prevents a destructiv misunderstanding. These are exactley the safety-relevant facts an agent needs before invoking a destructiv tool.

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?

Roughly 60 words, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the key caveat, use case, side-effect warning, parameter, and return type. Every sentence earns its place and no filler exists.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, all gaps are closed: action, side effect, permenance, parameter format, and return shape. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% — the schema only says album_id is a string. The description fully compensates with 'The album's UUID to delete,' adding both the required format (UUID) and the parameter's role. For a single-parameter tool this is complete.

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') + resource ('album container') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying 'The photos inside are NOT deleted — they remain in the library.' This sets it apart from delete_assets and remove_assets_from_album without needing to open those tools.

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?

'Use this to remove unwanted album groupings' gives a clear intended scenario. The photos-remain caveat implicitly routes away from photo-deletion tools, but alternatives are not explicitly named, so it stops short of the explicit when/when-not guidance.

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