bulk_delete_announcements

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

The annotations provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: the deletion is permanent and Canvas may retain a recycle-bin copy depending on admin settings. This goes beyond the annotation and informs the agent about potential data recovery limitations, which is valuable for a destructive operation.

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 description is extremely concise: two sentences that convey the core purpose and the most critical warning. No filler words, every piece of information is essential. It is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately follows with the irreversible consequence.

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?

Given that the tool has a high schema coverage (100%), no output schema, but does have critical annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description covers the essential aspects. It does not describe behavior on partial errors (like stop_on_error) but that is covered in the schema. It is complete enough for an agent to decide to use it and understand the irreversible nature.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear descriptions for each parameter, including the purpose of 'limit' and 'dry_run' safety feature. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, but it does highlight the dry_run safety in the limit description. Since the schema already thoroughly documents the parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Delete multiple announcements from a Canvas course.' It specifies the resource (Canvas announcements) and the scope (multiple, not a single one), which directly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'delete_announcement' (singular). The permanent nature is also highlighted, reinforcing the destructive purpose.

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 implicitly communicates when to use this tool by naming 'multiple announcements' and contrasting with the singular 'delete_announcement' sibling. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over 'delete_announcement_with_confirmation' or 'delete_announcements_by_criteria', nor when not to use it (e.g., if a safe, rollbackable operation is needed). The 'permanent' warning implies a cautious usage, but lacks explicit alternatives.

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