Delete records

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: irreversibility, the fact that ids from other objects are silently ignored, and the important caveat that deleted_count reflects ids sent rather than confirmed deletions.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its limit, then the safety warning, then the return shape. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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 batch tool, it covers the essentials: the 100-record cap, the object_type/record_ids coupling, irreversibility, and the return payload. An output schema exists, yet the description's note about deleted_count semantics is still the key detail an agent needs.

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. The description earns above baseline by explaining cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot: all record_ids must belong to object_type, and mismatched ids are ignored without an error or count confirmation.

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 with scope: "Permanently deletes up to 100 records of one object by id." The batch cap and single-object constraint distinguish it from sibling delete tools (notes_delete, tasks_delete, fields_delete) and from records_update.

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?

Gives one explicit usage directive — "confirm with the user first" — which is valuable for a destructive operation. However, it never names alternatives (e.g., records_update to modify instead of delete) or states when-not to use it, so routing guidance is only implied.

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