Delete request payloads

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint) by disclosing exactly what is destroyed vs preserved, that the action is irreversible, that an admin API key is required, and that idempotency is available only via an optional key with a 10-minute cache window. This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then organized into scannable labeled sections (Important, What gets deleted, What is NOT deleted, Response, Idempotency). Slightly long and the closing docs link is optional, but nearly every line carries decision-relevant content.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return value (per-file deletion status with file link and any error). Combined with the destructive-action caveats, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the Idempotency-Key behavior and mentions admin-key auth, but adds little syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already documents for request_id, account, and confirm.

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 (deletes) and resources (IO payloads and associated CDN output files) scoped to a specific request. No sibling tool performs this operation, so it is trivially distinguishable, and the 'what gets deleted' / 'what is NOT deleted' breakdown pins down scope precisely.

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?

Provides rich context (irreversible, admin key required, only output files affected) but never explicitly frames when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, nor states any when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than routed, though the surrounding context is strong.

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