studio_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates critical behavioral traits: the operation is 'IRREVERSIBLE' (destructive nature), requires user confirmation ('confirm=True after user approval'), and references artifact sourcing ('from studio_status'). This covers safety, authentication needs, and context without contradictions.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose and critical warnings in the first sentence, followed by a structured Args section that efficiently documents parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly scannable and informative.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, irreversible nature, confirmation requirements, parameter semantics, and artifact context, leaving no gaps for safe agent invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 3 parameters: 'notebook_id' as 'Notebook UUID', 'artifact_id' as 'Artifact UUID (from studio_status)', and 'confirm' as 'Must be True after user approval'. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, clarifying UUID formats, relationships, and confirmation logic.

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 specific action ('Delete studio artifact') and resource ('studio artifact'), distinguishing it from siblings like notebook_delete or source_delete which target different resources. The verb 'Delete' is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Delete studio artifact') and includes a critical usage condition ('Requires confirm=True after user approval'), which provides clear guidance on prerequisites and safety measures. It differentiates from siblings by specifying the artifact context.

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