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

The destructive and idempotent annotations already cover safety and repeat-call behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by saying translation siblings are unaffected and by requiring explicit user confirmation.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by two relevant constraints. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations already disclose destructiveness and idempotency. The main remaining gap is that projectUid semantics are not described.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It only says "one project" and does not explain projectUid format, source, or required status beyond what the parameter name already implies.

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: "Remove the current public video for one project." The scope is precise and the note about translation siblings distinguishes it from broader project deletion or translation operations.

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?

Clear usage context: use it to remove the current public video for one project. It also explicitly requires asking the user for confirmation before calling, though it does not name publish_project as the alternative action.

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