content_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so 'irreversible' largely restates them. The description still earns credit for adding non-annotation context: RPC-backed with no browser dependency, and the library-scope boundary that determines whether a mind map is even deletable here.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the destructive action, then the prerequisite, then the warning and scope caveat. No filler sentences; each line carries a distinct decision-relevant fact.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema present, the remaining gaps an agent could hit — how to obtain a valid id, and which mind maps are out of scope — are both addressed. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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% — content_id, notebook_id and notebook_url are all documented in the schema, including the active-notebook fallback. The description only reiterates the list_content provenance of content_id, so baseline 3 applies.

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) plus the exact resource (generated Studio artifact) and enumerates the artifact types covered, which distinguishes it cleanly from content_list, content_download and content_generate. An agent can identify the target without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Use list_content first to get the artifact id') and an explicit exclusion ('Note-backed mind maps are not covered — they live in the notes system'), which routes the agent to the note_* siblings for that case. When-to-use, prerequisite and boundary are all present.

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