Delete Customizations

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: the required permission scope, the delegate-to-contact token behavior, the confirm=true gate, and side effects ('may share access, notify people or incur provider charges'). It stops short of stating reversibility or throttling.

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 key behavior is front-loaded in a single crisp sentence, followed by the permission block. The permission/authorization boilerplate is long, but it is genuinely load-bearing context for a mutation rather than filler.

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, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers authorization, the confirmation gate, and possible side effects, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits return/error behavior and any explicit statement of whether the deletion can be undone.

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 three parameters, including confirm's meaning and media_id. The description reinforces the confirm requirement but adds no new syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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 and resource ('Deletes all explicit customizations for a video') and adds scope ('all', acting as if never customized), which distinguishes it from update_customizations and the per-type update_* siblings. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 clearly states prerequisites — a token with the right permission and confirm=true for the mutation — but never names the alternative (update_customizations for partial edits, or the delete_* per-type siblings) or the condition that would select it over them. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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