studio_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so effectively. It explicitly warns 'IRREVERSIBLE' (critical destructive behavior), specifies the confirm parameter requirement (safety mechanism), and mentions the artifact_id source ('from studio_status'), providing important operational context beyond basic parameter documentation.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded with the most critical information ('Delete studio artifact. IRREVERSIBLE. Requires confirm=True.') followed by clear parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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, but with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, critical behavior, and all parameters thoroughly. The only minor gap is not explicitly mentioning what the tool returns, but since an output schema exists, this is acceptable.

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 fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: notebook_id as 'Notebook UUID', artifact_id as 'Artifact UUID (from studio_status)', and confirm with the critical constraint 'Must be True after user approval'. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('studio artifact'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like notebook_delete or source_delete by specifying the exact type of artifact being deleted. The verb+resource combination is precise 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (deleting studio artifacts) and includes the prerequisite 'Requires confirm=True after user approval', which indicates a safety mechanism. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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