delete_bbox_annotation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses 'hard-delete' (implying permanent removal) and 'atomically' (all-or-nothing execution). However, it does not clarify side effects (e.g., cascade to dependent data), required permissions, or confirm irreversibility beyond the word 'hard'. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single sentence of 6 words that front-loads the verb and object. Every word earns its place: 'hard-delete' specifies permanence, 'one or more' indicates batch capability, 'atomically' conveys transactional behavior. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (return format not needed in description) and the tool's straightforward nature, the description covers the basic action. However, it lacks guidance on when to prefer this tool over similar sibling tools (e.g., delete_rotated_bbox_annotation) and missing precondition hints like 'dataset_id must be active' or 'annotation_ids must exist'. The description is functional but minimally complete.

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%; both parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., does not explain the relationship between dataset_id and annotation_ids). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Hard-delete' and the resource 'bbox annotations', clearly stating the action. It also specifies 'one or more' and 'atomically', which adds precision. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'delete_rotated_bbox_annotation' which target a different annotation type.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., batch delete vs. individual delete via edit tools, or differences from deleting rotated annotations). There is no mention of prerequisites such as the dataset existing or the annotations being present. The agent receives no context for appropriate invocation.

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