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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so safety semantics are covered structurally. The description adds useful scoping context about what is and isn't destroyed, but says nothing about permission requirements, reversibility, or the effect on the underlying video/creator/source object. Adequate but not rich, given the annotations carry the safety profile.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the scope exclusion. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers intent and scope but leaves parameters undocumented and omits any auth, reversibility, or post-condition detail. Combined with annotations covering safety hints, it is minimally complete but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0% across 3 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions contentId, referenceId, or brandId. At best 'content card' loosely hints at contentId and 'attachment/video/creator/source' at referenceId, but the mapping and the role of the optional brandId are left to inference.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('an attachment (video, creator or source) from a content card'), and explicitly narrows the scope, distinguishing it from deletion of library references or catalog items. An agent can tell it apart from attach_content_reference and delete_saved_reference without opening any 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 gives a clear negative boundary ('Does not remove a saved library reference or catalog item'), which steers the agent away from the adjacent delete_* tools. However, it does not positively state when to reach for this tool or name the preferred alternative for library/catalog removal, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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