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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real behavior beyond that: the refusal conditions, the fact that the error enumerates each importer, and that the rendered video itself does not change. These are exactly the details an agent needs before an irreversible delete.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its refusal conditions; every sentence carries usable information. The sentence about importers and patch_film is slightly dense but not padded.

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, non-idempotent tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it deletes, what it refuses, what it leaves untouched, and how versions are targeted. Only the shape of a successful response is left implicit, which is minor.

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% and the property descriptions already document path, branchId and projectId with the same semantics restated here (null/omitted means current version, version id from list_branches). The description adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Delete a module film file such as brand.film from the project") and immediately bounds the scope with concrete examples of what it is not (main.film). The example filename makes it distinguishable from delete_component, delete_project and replace_film.

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 when-not: refused for main.film and refused while a film file imports the module, plus the corrective action (use patch_film to remove the <import> and alias uses first). It does not compare against sibling deletion tools, but the usage context is clear enough to act on without experiments.

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