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

The description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true) and adds the word 'Permanently,' which reinforces irreversible deletion. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as cascading effects, revocability, permission requirements, or effects on other resources. Annotations already carry the safety profile, so the description adds only a small increment of transparency.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff and is front-loaded with the action. It could be slightly more informative (e.g., noting irreversibility or usage context), but it is appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool.

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?

Given this is a simple two-parameter deletion tool, the schema fully documents parameters and an output schema exists. The description conveys the core purpose and permanent nature, and annotations handle destructive/idempotent behavior. The absence of error-handling notes or prerequisites is minor for this complexity level.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The parameters `project_id` and `video_id` already have clear descriptions in the schema, and the tool description contributes very little parameter-specific meaning beyond 'from a project,' which is already implied by `project_id`.

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 and resource: 'Permanently delete a video from a project.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling `vivu_delete_project` and other video/list operations. The phrasing is unambiguous about the resource being a video within a project.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or distinguish itself from `vivu_delete_project`. An agent must rely on the tool name/context rather than an explicit usage contract.

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