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

Goes well beyond destructiveHint=true by explaining that the default invocation is a safe preview that "changes nothing", that in-progress videos are skipped rather than deleted, that there is a 50-item batch cap, that only owned videos are affected, and that the operation is free. These are precisely the behavioral facts annotations cannot convey.

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 dry-run protocol is front-loaded in the second sentence, and every remaining sentence carries a distinct constraint (in-progress exclusion, batch limit, ownership, cost). No redundancy with the title or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by describing what the preview response contains ("lists exactly what would be removed"). For a 2-parameter destructive tool, nothing an agent needs to call it safely is 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 baseline is 3; the description adds real semantics by framing confirm as a dry-run toggle (absent = preview, true = execute) rather than a plain boolean. It also adds the "up to 50 at a time" constraint on video_ids that the schema does not state.

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 ("Remove") and resource ("your own finished videos") plus where they are removed from (video list and Video page). The ownership and finished-only qualifiers distinguish it from delete_my_asset and cancel_my_task without requiring schema inspection.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: call first without confirm for a no-op preview, then call again with confirm true after the person agrees. It also names the alternative for the in-progress case ("stop it with cancel_my_task"), which is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs.

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