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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the cascade (dependent notes are removed), that reference binding rules are applied, the required permission level, and the return signal deleted=true. Annotations only flag destructive/idempotent; the description explains the actual side effects, which is exactly the value it should add.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the prerequisites and side effects. Every sentence carries information; the only mildly redundant phrase is 'using the app service', which adds little.

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 mutation with an output schema, it covers permissions, cascade behavior, scope exclusions, and the confirmation signal. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and what to expect afterward.

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 both parameters already document their provenance (studio_projects_list / studio_video_start, studio_references_list / studio_song_status). The description adds no further meaning to projectId or attachmentId, 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: removing an image/video reference attachment from a project. It also draws a boundary against sibling capabilities by noting it does not delete another project reference or a song, which helps disambiguation without naming a specific sibling tool.

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 concrete preconditions for use (editor permission, the customer having chosen this reference) and states scope exclusions (not another project reference, not a song). It does not name an alternative tool to use instead, but the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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