direct_delete_bidmodifiers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'WRITE' and 'allow_write=true', which already implies mutation. It does not warn that deletion is destructive, irreversible, or that dry_run should be used for a dry plan. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: 'WRITE: bidmodifiers.delete by ids. allow_write=true.' Every word is informative, with no fluff or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core operation and a key prerequisite.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as the destructive nature of deletion, the role of the project parameter (required for write per schema), and the availability of a dry_run preview. The agent cannot fully assess side effects or prerequisites from the description alone.

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 description coverage is 50% (project and allow_write are described, ids and dry_run are not). The description repeats 'by ids' but does not clarify the meaning of the IDs (e.g., where they come from) or the purpose of dry_run. It adds little value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states 'bidmodifiers.delete by ids' — a specific verb (delete) with a specific resource (bidmodifiers) and method (by ids). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like direct_list_bidmodifiers and direct_set_bidmodifiers, so the agent can immediately understand the tool's role.

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?

The description implies usage: it's a delete operation for bid modifiers, and the 'allow_write=true' requirement gives a prerequisite for actual mutation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use direct_set_bidmodifiers or direct_list_bidmodifiers), nor does it mention the optional dry_run parameter as a safe preview mode.

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