Delete Review Bundle

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, but the description goes beyond them: it discloses that the shared review link is removed, that contained media survive, that the operation is irreversible, that a specific permission scope and confirm=true are required, and that the call 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 core behavior (permanent delete, link removed, media preserved, irreversible) is front-loaded in the first two sentences. The permission block is boilerplate-heavy but structured, with only minor redundancy.

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 consequences, side effects, and authorization requirements well. The one gap is not directing the agent to how the hashed id is obtained or what a successful/failed deletion returns.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds value by emphasizing the confirm=true gating requirement and the significance of the hashed id as the deletion target, reinforcing semantics rather than restating raw types.

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+resource ('Permanently deletes a review bundle') and identifies it by hashed id. It also draws a clear boundary against sibling delete tools by clarifying that the contained media are NOT deleted, letting an agent distinguish it from delete_media.

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 destructive, irreversible nature implies when it is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named prerequisite (e.g., call list_review_bundles to obtain the id, or a non-destructive alternative). Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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