Studio Delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that deletion is IRREVERSIBLE and that confirm=True is required, which is critical for a destructive operation. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the core risk is explicitly surfaced.

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 three short clauses with no filler. The most important information ('IRREVERSIBLE') is front-loaded, and the confirmation requirement is stated immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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 simple destructive tool with no annotations but a present output schema, the description covers the essential safety-critical details: irreversibility and confirmation. It does not explain what a 'studio artifact' is or mention prerequisites, but the core invocation requirements are sufficiently clear.

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 adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by stating that confirm=True is required, even though the schema marks it as optional with a default of false. This is important operational guidance that prevents a failed or accidental deletion.

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 action ('Delete') on a specific resource ('studio artifact'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like studio_create, studio_status, and studio_revise. The verb and object are unambiguous and match the tool name/title without being a mere tautology.

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 gives no guidance on when this tool should be used relative to alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the safety flag. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the deletion operation among the studio_* siblings.

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