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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the side effect that videos are retained, but says nothing about reversibility or effect on other linked resources (analyses, canvases).

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 short sentence with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant detail (videos stay) is included up front. It is terse rather than padded, though the parenthetical is slightly informal.

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 one-parameter mutation tool whose annotations already flag destructiveness and idempotency, the description covers the key side effect. However, it never clarifies what 'archive' means relative to deletion or whether the action can be undone, which an agent handling a destructive tool would benefit from.

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% for the single song_id parameter, so the schema already carries the documentation burden. The description adds no format or lookup hints for the id, so the baseline of 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 (remove/archive) and resource (song), and the parenthetical clarifies the scope of removal. It does not reference the sibling archive_artist or distinguish itself from delete_video, so the differentiation gap keeps it from a 5.

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 archive versus when to delete or otherwise act, and no alternatives or preconditions are named. The agent must infer usage entirely from context.

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