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

Goes well past the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations by explaining what actually happens: a copied file is removed from the browser, a linked file remains on disk and only leaves the library. It also discloses the downstream consequence that compositions using the deleted file report missing footage — exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the copied-vs-linked distinction, then the downstream effect. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the annotations.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action, the two file-source behaviors, and the impact on compositions. Minor gaps remain around what happens for unknown ids, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that deletion targets ids (plural, suggesting batch semantics) but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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 ('Deletes files from the user's media library by id'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_media, list_media, put_media, and organize_media. The scope (per-file deletion by id) is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive nature and 'by id' phrasing, but the description never says when to choose this over organize_media or other library-management tools, nor any prerequisite beyond the token. Adequate, but the agent must infer the boundary.

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