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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the danger profile is known. The description adds the error contract — an invalid id yields {"error":"invalid_id"} — which is useful, but it never says whether deletion is permanent or what permissions are required.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the action, followed by parameter notes. Dense and free of filler, though the German prose mixed into an otherwise English tool surface is a minor readability tax.

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 both parameters plus the error case are covered. The remaining gap is the destructive consequence itself — permanence and required permissions — which matters more than usual for a delete operation.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely does: it clarifies that file_id is a numeric ID despite the schema typing it as a string, documents the failure mode, and explains workspace as a customer slug that can be omitted for single-workspace setups.

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: deleting a file from the Strapi media library, and identifies where the identifier comes from (strapi_list_media / strapi_upload_media). The strapi_ prefix implicitly separates it from wp_delete_media / gbp_delete_media, but no sibling is named as a contrast.

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 tells the agent where file_id must come from (strapi_list_media or strapi_upload_media), which is real usage guidance, and notes the workspace slug is optional when only one workspace exists. There is no explicit statement of when to use strapi_update_media or another platform's delete_media instead.

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