delete_showcase

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, but the description goes further by spelling out what is destroyed (showcase order and branding), what is preserved (videos), and the safety requirement (confirmation). This adds meaningful context beyond the annotation flags and contains 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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: the core action, the non-destructive effect on videos, and the required scope/confirmation. The most important fact is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description captures the essential operational details: side effects, scope requirement, and confirmation requirement. An agent has enough information to decide whether to call it and how to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to document parameters. The mention of 'Requires confirm: true' reinforces the schema's instruction but does not add new meaning beyond what the confirm property already states.

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 a showcase') and clarifies the exact scope: videos inside remain in the library, only the curated order and branding are removed. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_video or remove_video_from_showcase.

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 provides concrete invocation guidance: the delete scope is required and confirm must be true. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the behavioral clarification about videos not being deleted effectively implies when this tool should and should not be used.

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