bulk_delete_announcements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'This cannot be undone', which is a critical warning about irreversibility and destructiveness. This provides the agent with the key safety information needed before invoking the operation. While it doesn't mention permissions or side effects, the irreversible deletion is the most significant behavior for this tool.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the primary purpose, immediately follows with parameter format and source, and concludes with the critical irreversible warning. Every sentence adds value, there is no fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded. It is efficiently written.

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?

The description covers the essential points: what it does, how to get IDs, and the irreversible nature. It does not explain the `course_identifier` parameter, which is a gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly. Since an output schema exists, the return format is handled separately. The description is adequate for a bulk delete operation, but the missing parameter explanation prevents it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains `announcement_ids` well, including format (comma-separated list) and source (from `list_announcements`). However, it provides no explanation for `course_identifier`, which is required. The agent is left to infer its meaning from the name alone. Since only one of two required parameters is described, the description is incomplete for parameter semantics.

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 action ('Delete multiple announcements at once'), identifying the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `delete_announcement` by emphasizing 'multiple', making the bulk nature obvious. The description is unambiguous and leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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 provides usage context by instructing the agent to obtain IDs from `list_announcements first`, which is a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative `delete_announcement` for single deletions or state when to choose this bulk tool over it. The guidance is implicit but sufficient given the tool name, though it lacks explicit exclusions.

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