list_deleted_prompts

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. It reveals meaningful behavior: the 48-hour grace window, grouping by delete batch, and included output fields (sample texts, expiry). It stops short of stating auth requirements or potential side effects, but 'list' clearly signals a read operation, making the gap minor.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and key behavioral constraints; the second provides actionable cross-tool integration. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the operation, the scope condition (deleted, restorable, 48h), the output grouping and included data, and the follow-up action (restore_prompts with batchId). An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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% and the single parameter brandId is already documented as 'The brand UUID from list_brands'. The tool description adds context by indicating the brand scope, but it does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('list'), resource ('recently deleted prompts for a brand'), and a clear distinguishing scope ('still restorable (48-hour grace window)'). It also mentions grouping by delete batch, which further differentiates it from sibling tools like list_prompts and delete_prompts.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: when listing restorable deleted prompts within the 48-hour grace window. It also names the downstream tool, restore_prompts, and ties it to the batchId, giving explicit guidance on how the output feeds into the undo flow.

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