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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context: which states block deletion (in-flight orders, paid work awaiting consumption, open/review-required checkouts), the permission requirement, and the return value 'deleted=true'. It stops short of stating whether the archive is reversible.

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-loads the action, then permission, then refusal conditions, then return value, then disambiguation. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 single-param tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: trigger, permission, blocking conditions, return signal, and scope boundary. Nothing material is missing.

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% and the single projectId parameter is fully documented with its origin ('returned by studio_projects_list or studio_video_start'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 ('Archive one video or Film') and explicitly frames the operation as archive-soft-delete rather than permanent erasure, which disambiguates it from studio_artist_delete and account erasure. The only wrinkle is the tension between the name/title ('delete') and the verb 'Archive', but the description resolves rather than creates that ambiguity.

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 a concrete trigger ('after the customer requests deletion') and a prerequisite ('Requires editor permission'), plus an explicit exclusion ('separate from permanently erasing an artist or account'). It does not name the specific sibling tool an agent should use for permanent erasure, which keeps it short of a 5.

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