execute_record_deletion

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

Given no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: explicitly labels as DESTRUCTIVE, states data cannot be restored, details timeframe constraints, queuing, return of taskId, required DT_ENABLE_WRITES=true, and specific scopes. No 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 appropriately sized with critical info front-loaded (DESTRUCTIVE). Could be more structured with bullet points for constraints, but it's efficient and every sentence adds value.

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 tool with no output schema, the description comprehensively covers all aspects: constraints, prerequisites, return value (taskId), and execution behavior. No significant gaps remain.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value with a concrete query example, clarifies when timeframe is ignored, and mentions defaults for timezone/locale. Slight improvement could be more structured format.

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 starts with 'DESTRUCTIVE — permanently deletes Grail records', clearly stating the verb (deletes) and resource (Grail records). It distinguishes from siblings like execute_dql or cancel_record_deletion by specifying the destructive scope and constraints.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use information: mentions permanence, timeframe limits (24h, end at least 4h past), queuing behavior, required env variable and scopes, and allowed query commands. Does not explicitly compare to other tools, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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