evidence_group_delete_bulk

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by emphasizing 'Permanently deletes' and adding a specific risk caution about sealed groups backing issued reports. This goes beyond the annotation flags and gives actionable context, though it doesn't elaborate on idempotency behavior or side effects.

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 sentences, each with meaningful content: scope, alternative, and required parameters. No redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately flags destructiveness.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, alternative, and a critical caveat, but its 'Requires' list omits requestId, which is a required parameter. While the schema supplies this detail, the description is the primary guidance and should at least mention it. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't explain expected return behavior, leaving a minor gap for a destructive bulk operation.

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 67% (descriptions for requestId and caseFileId, but not ids). The description adds meaning by calling ids 'the evidenceGroupIds to delete' and suggesting evidence_group_search to find them. However, it omits mention of the required requestId, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage 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?

The description states a specific verb ('permanently deletes'), resource ('evidence groups'), scope ('SEVERAL evidence groups of one case file in one call'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool evidence_group_discard. It clearly differentiates this bulk destructive operation from a single-group alternative.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool ('SEVERAL evidence groups of one case file in one call') and when not to ('prefer evidence_group_discard for a single group'). It also provides a direct warning ('never delete sealed groups that back issued reports') and a pointer to evidence_group_search to find target groups. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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