direct_delete_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation is a WRITE (mutation), irreversible, and requires explicit allow_write=true. This is strong behavioral context beyond the schema. It could add more about dry_run behavior or partial failures, but the essentials are covered.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with 'WRITE', and packs essential info: action, target, irreversibility, and prerequisites. No fluff or repetition.

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 delete tool with no annotations and 4 parameters, the description is minimal. It omits the dry_run safety feature, which is critical given irreversibility. It also doesn't mention return behavior. With no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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% (project and allow_write have descriptions; dry_run and keyword_ids don't). The description adds meaning by emphasizing 'by ids' (keyword_ids) and 'allow_write=true + project scope' (both params). However, dry_run remains unexplained, leaving a 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 clearly states the verb ('delete'), resource ('keywords'), and method ('by ids'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like update or add by specifying irreversible deletion. The 'WRITE' prefix reinforces the action type.

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 when to use (delete keywords by IDs) and gives prerequisites ('allow_write=true + project scope'). It warns of irreversibility, which guides cautious use. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like direct_set_keyword_states for pausing, or exclude non-write scenarios.

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