Delete Localization

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: the required permission scopes, delegation semantics for team-member tokens, the mandatory confirm=true gate, and the side-effect warning that deletion may share access, notify people or incur provider charges.

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 single-sentence purpose is front-loaded and the confirm requirement is stated, but the bulk of the text is a large fenced permission block with boilerplate that inflates the definition. It is not padded arbitrarily, but the signal-to-length ratio is mediocre.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers permissions, the confirm gate, and side effects, and annotations cover reversibility and world scope. The main missing piece is any statement about whether a deleted localization can be recovered or what an error response looks like.

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% and all four parameters (account, confirm, media_hashed_id, localization_hashed_id) are documented inline. The description restates that confirm=true is required but adds no format, ID-sourcing or edge-case 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?

The description states a clear verb+resource ('Deletes a localization'), which cleanly separates it from the other delete_* siblings (delete_media, delete_captions, delete_folder) and from list_localization/get_localization/create_localization. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 text says nothing about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_media or delete_captions, nor when not to use it. It only provides authentication and confirm-token mechanics, which are prerequisites rather than usage guidance.

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