Delete Customizations

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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent, but the description adds real context beyond them: required token permission tiers, the delegated-permission path, the confirm=true gating, and side-effect warnings about sharing access, notifying people, or incurring provider charges. This is exactly the kind of behavior detail annotations cannot convey.

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 core purpose sentence is front-loaded and efficient, and the mandatory confirm requirement is present. The permission block is fairly verbose boilerplate, which slightly dilutes the entry, but every line is functionally relevant.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the effect on the target, the required permission scope, the confirm gate, and possible side effects. An agent has everything needed to invoke it safely.

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 account, confirm, and media_id fully. The description reinforces the confirm=true requirement but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (deletes), the resource (all explicit customizations for a video), and the resulting state (acts as if never customized). No sibling tool offers a per-category delete, so an agent can distinguish this bulk-delete from the various get_/update_ customization tools without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope word 'all' and the effect on the video, and prerequisites (token scope, confirm=true) are stated. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over, say, update_customizations to strip specific settings, nor does it name any alternative. Adequate but not explicit.

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