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

While annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, the description adds that it removes the asset and every scene layer built from it, immediately. This goes beyond the annotation by revealing cascading effects and the lack of reversal.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, no filler. Every phrase adds meaning.

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 simple destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the asset types, the condition for asset_id, and the immediate cascading effect. Minor gap: no mention of errors or confirmation, but not necessary given annotations.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining when asset_id is optional and where to obtain it (get_segment_assets), which the schema only partially implies.

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 names the action (delete), the resource (segment's sound effect or overlay), and clarifies scope by explicitly excluding structural assets (image, video, voiceover). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like delete_asset and remove_music_track.

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?

It states when to use: for SFX/overlay only, and when not to use (structural assets). It also gives a conditional rule for asset_id (no id needed when only one attached). It doesn't name alternatives explicitly but gives enough contextual guidance.

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