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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the required scopes (demos:read, demos:write) and the fact that deletion is recoverable via two distinct undo mechanisms – neither of which the annotations convey.

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: the action and scope first, then the recovery path and required permissions. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter, fully documented, annotation-covered delete with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: auth scopes and reversibility. It does not mention side effects such as scene reordering or what happens to steps attached to the scene, which would be useful for a destructive tool.

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%, with both videoId and sceneId documented including format examples and provenance ('from get_video', 'from list_videos'). The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the schema-driven baseline of 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 ('Removes a scene from the video'), so the agent knows exactly what is deleted and from where. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling mutations like delete_step or move_scene, but the resource noun makes the target unambiguous.

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 gives a recovery hint (studio undo or chat's Undo), which implies this is a destructive action to be used deliberately, but it never states when to choose this over delete_step, update_scene, or other scene operations. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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