Delete request payloads

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent by default, but the description adds substantial specificity: exactly what is deleted (payload data and CDN output files), what is not deleted (input CDN files shared by other requests), irreversibility, admin-key authentication requirement, and idempotency-key retry behavior with a 10-minute response cache. This is rich, useful context beyond the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by bold headings and bullet lists that cleanly separate important constraints, deletion scope, response details, and idempotency. The length is justified by the destructive admin operation, and every section 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the response shape (deletion status per CDN file and any errors). Annotations cover destructiveness and open-world behavior, while the description fills in authentication, irreversibility, exact deletion boundaries, and retry semantics, leaving no material gap for an agent.

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 all four parameters are already documented. The description adds value for the Idempotency-Key parameter (prevents duplicate deletions, 10-minute cache) but does not clarify account or confirm, so it only partially extends parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is 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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Deletes the IO payloads and associated CDN output files for a specific request.' It is clearly distinguishable from sibling delete tools such as delete_asset_collection, delete_asset_character, and delete_asset_tag because it targets request payloads.

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 (admin API key required, irreversible, only output CDN files deleted) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternative delete_* siblings. It implies the usage but lacks direct routing or exclusion guidance.

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