evidence_case_file_delete_bulk

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds 'not reversible' and a confirmation workflow, reinforcing the severity beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction with idempotentHint or readOnlyHint.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the destructive nature and purpose. Every word adds value, and the alternative is mentioned succinctly.

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 bulk delete with only two params and no output schema, the description covers the critical destructive warning, the need to confirm IDs, and the alternative tool. It does not explicitly mention the requestId requirement, but that is fully described in the schema, so nothing essential 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 50% (only requestId has a description). The tool description mentions 'caseFileIds' but doesn't elaborate on the ids array structure beyond the schema's UUID format, and it never mentions the requestId parameter. The schema already compensates well for requestId, so the description adds little beyond the vague reference to caseFileIds.

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 description states a specific verb ('deletes'), resource ('case files'), and scope ('SEVERAL ... in one call'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling evidence_case_file_status_update by explicitly framing the alternative when only ending work is needed.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: confirm IDs first via evidence_case_file_search, and prefer status update instead if the goal is merely to end work. This is explicit and actionable.

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