delete_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose two useful traits beyond the schema (group deletion cascades to member objects, and objects are locked first). However, it omits the most important facts for a destructive tool: irreversibility, required permissions, whether locks are released afterward, and behavior on partial failure.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the destructive action and its cascade scope come first. It is efficient but so terse that clarity is traded away for brevity.

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, batch, no-annotation tool with no output schema and an undocumented required parameter, the description is materially incomplete. An agent cannot tell what ids accepts, what a partial failure yields, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 coverage is only 50%: the session parameter is documented in the schema, but the required ids array is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not clarify whether ids refer to objects, groups, or a mix, nor whether group ids and object ids can be passed together, leaving the primary required parameter 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 names a specific verb and resource ("Delete objects or groups") and clarifies the cascade behavior for groups, which distinguishes it from modify_objects/create_objects. It falls short of 5 because it never explicitly contrasts itself with a sibling like release or modify_objects with removal semantics.

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?

"as one step" hints that this is a batch form of deletion, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no warning about when not to use it. An agent must infer all routing decisions from the verb alone.

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