Delete Caption

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the non-obvious dry-run/confirm gate and its failure mode, plus a concrete quota cost (102 units). It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the destructive action and its target, followed by the confirm gate and a single cost figure. No filler and nothing that repeats the schema verbatim.

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 mutation with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description covers permanence, the confirm gate and quota cost. Only the post-delete state (e.g. whether the track disappears immediately from listings) is left unstated, a minor gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema only hints at: what happens when confirm is omitted and that the error payload describes the track, making the confirm parameter's role concrete rather than inferable.

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 plus scope ('Permanently delete a caption track from one of your videos'), which cleanly separates it from list_captions, upload_caption and update_caption in the sibling set. An agent can identify the operation 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?

It explicitly documents the mandatory two-step flow: calling without confirm deletes nothing and returns an error describing the track, so the agent knows to preview first and then pass the ID. It does not name alternatives for replacing rather than removing a track (e.g. update_caption), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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