bulk_delete_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't mention if deletion is permanent/reversible, requires permissions, has rate limits, or affects related data. 'Delete' implies destructive, but specifics like confirmation prompts or error handling are missing, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Extremely concise with a single sentence that's front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part ('Delete multiple assets') contributes directly to the purpose, making it efficient despite its simplicity.

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 annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like deletion consequences, error cases, or return values. Sibling tools suggest a rich asset management system, but this description doesn't help the agent navigate complexity or risks adequately.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'asset_ids' are, their format, valid ranges, or constraints. For a single required parameter with no schema documentation, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent guessing about input requirements.

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 'Delete multiple assets' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (assets), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling 'delete_asset' which presumably deletes single assets. It specifies 'multiple' which is helpful but lacks detail about what constitutes an asset or deletion behavior.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_asset' or 'bulk_restore_assets'. The description implies bulk operations but doesn't specify thresholds (e.g., use for >1 asset) or prerequisites. Sibling tools include both single and bulk operations, but no comparison is provided.

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