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 covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: that the deletion is a 'soft-delete' (implying recoverability rather than permanent erasure) and that it cascades to remove page-content references. It stops short of stating how/whether the asset can be restored.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the scope of effect. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 no explanation. For a destructive tool the description covers the key behavior (soft-delete, reference cleanup) and annotations cover reversibility/idempotency signals. The only minor gap is not surfacing the anonymous-page editToken requirement.

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%, so pageId, editToken, and mediaAssetId are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or the editToken condition, 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 ('soft-delete a media asset') plus the consequential side effect ('remove all references to it from the page content'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like media_attach and media_upload, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus media_attach/media_upload, no prerequisites called out (e.g. the anonymous-page editToken requirement lives only in the schema), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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