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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds context those don't cover: deletion is a soft move to trash that 'can be brought back,' the batch ceiling is 50, only the caller's own assets qualify, and the call is free. The preview-by-default behavior is disclosed rather than left to be discovered.

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 destructive action and its reversibility are front-loaded, followed by the call sequence, then constraints. Short declarative clauses, no filler; even the one-word 'Free.' carries a real decision signal about cost.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what the preview returns ('lists exactly what would be removed'), that it changes nothing, the batch limit, the ownership scope, and recoverability. Nothing needed to call it safely appears missing.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema and the description mostly restates the confirm semantics. It reinforces the dry-run pattern but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema text.

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 with scope: 'Move your own pictures from your Switch library to the trash.' It also distinguishes itself from delete_my_videos by restricting to pictures and from general library mutation by saying 'Only your own pictures.' An agent can route between delete_my_asset and delete_my_videos without opening a schema.

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?

It prescribes a clear two-call protocol: first without confirm to preview, then with confirm true after the person agrees. The condition for the destructive call is explicit. It doesn't name sibling tools directly (e.g. what to use for videos or how to obtain ids), though the schema points at list_my_assets and show_media.

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