delete_library_metadata_by_ids

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds useful context around the proxy parameter, explaining that it controls deletion of proxy items like media optimized versions, but it does not disclose broader consequences such as whether deletion is permanent or what happens to associated media files beyond proxy items.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary, the HTTP endpoint, and concise argument definitions. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no filler or redundancy with the schema.

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 small two-parameter destructive operation with an output schema, the description covers the main invocation details: endpoint, id format, and proxy behavior. It is not fully complete because it lacks alternative tool routing and leaves the exact accepted proxy value format unresolved, but it is adequate for a basic call.

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 carries the parameter documentation burden. It explains that ids is a comma-separated list and that proxy controls whether proxy items are deleted, which is valuable. However, the proxy parameter is typed as string/null in the schema while the description presents it as a boolean-like 'Whether' and says it defaults to false, while the schema default is null, leaving accepted values ambiguous.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Delete a metadata item' with the DELETE /library/metadata/{ids} endpoint. It distinguishes this from the many sibling library tools by focusing on the metadata item resource rather than sections, streams, or markers, though the singular 'item' slightly underrepresents the comma-separated multi-ID capability.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_library_metadata_by_ids_media_by_media_item or delete_library_metadata_by_ids_marker_by_marker. The endpoint and name imply the scope, but the description does not state exclusions or provide conditional routing advice.

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