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

Goes well past the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing permanence ("for good"), a referential-integrity guard that blocks deletion while anything displays the photo, the side effect on saved versions that lose the picture on restore, and idempotent behavior for repeats. These are exactly the consequences an agent needs before calling 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?

Four tight clauses, front-loaded with permission and effect, then refusal conditions, then the saved-version caveat, then idempotency. Nothing is filler, though the telegraphic phrasing ("Refused while a product, the draft or the live website shows it") is dense enough to require a second read.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers authorization, blocking conditions, permanence, restore side effects, and repeat-call behavior. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this safely 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 0% for the single required photo_id, so the description must carry the burden; it does so partially by stating provenance (an id obtained from my_website) and that it is a library photo identifier. Format constraints and length bounds remain undocumented in prose but are present in the schema.

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 ("Remove one photo from the website photo library") plus the identity key ("by its id from my_website"), which cleanly separates it from the upload sibling. An agent knows exactly what is being deleted and what identifies it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ("Owners only (needs sign-in)") and an explicit refusal condition with the remedy ("Refused while a product, the draft or the live website shows it: take it off there first"). It also implies a no-op case for re-uploads, though it does not name a sibling tool as the alternative for the blocked path.

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