Delete Captions

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructive=true, readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), but the description goes further by naming the required token scope, the delegation behavior, the confirm=true gate, and side-effect warnings ('May share access, notify people or incur provider charges'). It stops short of explaining irreversibility or what happens to other language tracks.

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 clearly headed permission block. The boilerplate warning sentence is generic but still informative; overall it is appropriately sized for a mutation tool with auth requirements.

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 needed (a delete operation), the description supplies the auth model, the confirm gate, and side-effect caveats, which is enough for an agent to call this safely. Only the precise failure/reversal semantics of the deletion are left unstated, a minor gap given destructiveHint is already declared.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including the ISO-639-2 pattern for language_code and the meaning of confirm. The description adds only the notion that language selects which captions to remove, which is already implied by the schema.

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 and resource ('Removes the captions file') and scopes it to a media item and language. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like update_captions, edit_captions_text, and delete_localization.

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?

It specifies prerequisites (api token permissions, delegate scope, confirm=true) which is useful operational guidance, but never states when to choose this over update_captions/edit_captions_text or how it relates to delete_localization. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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