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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that the deletion is 'soft' (not a hard delete) and that it removes all references from page content, which is a side effect not captured by the destructiveHint or idempotentHint annotations. This is transparent and consistent with the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action ('soft-delete') and immediately states the important side effect. Every word earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover destructive/idempotent behavior, the description is nearly complete. It explains the operation type and side effects; the only minor gap is not elaborating on what 'soft-delete' means for recovery, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions (pageId, editToken, mediaAssetId) at 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 clear verb ('soft-delete') and resource ('media asset'), and adds the specific effect of removing references from page content. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like media_upload or media_attach, which are about adding media, and from block_delete, which targets blocks.

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 implies the tool is for deleting media assets that are referenced in page content, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an editToken for anonymous pages), or note when not to use it. This leaves some inference to the agent.

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