delete_rotated_bbox_annotation

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

The description uses 'hard-delete' and 'atomically' to convey irreversibility and all-or-nothing behavior. However, it omits details about required permissions, error handling for invalid IDs, and whether the operation returns any data. With no annotations, more transparency would help.

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 that is front-loaded with the key verb. Every word serves a purpose (hard-delete, one or more, rotated, atomically). No unnecessary text.

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?

Despite having an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description lacks essential context for a destructive operation: it doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., annotation must exist), permissions needed, or how errors are handled. For a tool with no annotations and a similar sibling, the context is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke it.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameters, such as how to obtain annotation_ids or the role of dataset_id. 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 clearly states the verb 'delete', the resource 'rotated annotations', and adds qualifiers 'hard-delete' and 'atomically', distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_bbox_annotation'. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 sibling tools such as 'delete_bbox_annotation'. There is no mention of prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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