Team Batch Delete Entries

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by disclosing batch atomicity ("single transaction"), the 50-item cap, and the authorship restriction. It does not explain what the `permanent` flag governs — critical for a destructive tool — nor what happens if one ID is unauthorized.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the destructive action and batch semantics are front-loaded, followed by the two hard constraints an agent most needs.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the ownership and size constraints cover the essentials. However, for a destructive batch operation with 25% parameter coverage, the silence on permanence/recoverability and on partial-failure behavior leaves meaningful gaps.

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 only 25%, with just workspace_id documented, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It adds the 50-item limit to entry_ids, but leaves `permanent` (the soft-vs-hard-delete switch, default false) and `project_number` completely unexplained.

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 (delete), resource (team journal entries), and scope (multiple, single transaction), which clearly distinguishes it from team_delete_entry. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (team_delete_entry, batch_delete_entries), but the batch/team qualifiers make intent inferable.

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?

"Max 50 per batch" and "Can only delete entries you authored" are eligibility constraints rather than when-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over calling team_delete_entry repeatedly, or when the non-team batch_delete_entries sibling applies.

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