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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond structured data: it discloses that associated media is destroyed alongside the generation and that no credit refund is issued, both of which are behavioral facts the annotations cannot express.

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, both earning their place, with the permanence warning front-loaded before the secondary consequence. No filler or 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, and annotations cover the destructive/idempotency profile. The description supplies the key extras (media cascade, no refund); only a note on what happens on repeat or invalid IDs is missing, which is a minor gap.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden and does not address generation_id at all. The parameter is nonetheless self-evident from its name and uuid format, so the gap is minor and a 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Permanently remove') and resource ('a generation and its media'), and the scope of collateral removal is explicit. Among siblings like delete_folder, delete_upload, and delete_subject, the resource is unambiguous and no schema opening is needed to tell what is deleted.

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?

The consequences ('cannot be undone', 'refunds nothing') implicitly steer usage away from mistaken or speculative deletes, but the description never states when to use this versus alternatives (archive, update_generation, or regenerate_generation). Usage is implied by the plain delete semantics rather than stated.

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