review_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful specifics beyond them: the deletion is limited to metadata while audio files and the FL project are untouched, and it "Cannot be undone." That scoping of destruction and irreversibility is real added value, though it omits error behavior for a missing session.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by scope and irreversibility. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, precondition, and irreversibility. It could still note behavior when the session id is unknown, keeping it just shy of 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%, so both parameters (confirm, review_session_id) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (one Review Session's stored record), scoped to a single record. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like review_stop and review_export_delivery by clarifying that only the stored metadata record is removed, not audio or the FL project.

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?

"after the user asks to" gives a clear triggering condition for use, reinforced by the schema's confirm requirement. It does not name an alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use case (e.g., stopping vs deleting a session), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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