Delete Webinar

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: the required token permission scopes, delegation behavior, the mandatory confirm=true, and the side-effect warning about sharing access, notifying people, or incurring 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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the permission and confirmation requirements. The permission block is verbose but operationally relevant for a destructive call, and there is only minor duplication of the confirm rule.

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 delete with no output schema and strong annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing pieces: required scopes, delegation semantics, the confirm gate, and side-effect warnings. What remains unstated (reversibility, whether the deletion is soft or hard) is a minor gap.

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%, with all three parameters (id, account, confirm) documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces the confirm requirement already stated in the schema; it adds nothing new about the id or account parameters.

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 an existing webinar'), which is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like update_webinar or get_webinar. It does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives, but the name/verb pairing leaves no room for confusion.

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 description never says when to use this tool versus restoring via restore_deleted_media or archiving via archive_media, and offers no preconditions beyond the confirm flag. The confirm=true requirement is a gating rule rather than usage guidance, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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