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. The description adds genuinely new context by clarifying what is NOT destroyed ('the video it read is untouched'), which resolves a real ambiguity about blast radius for a delete operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the scope clarification. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 not be explained, and the annotations cover reversibility and safety. The remaining gap is the missing delete-vs-archive guidance, which matters because a sibling handles the same entity non-destructively.

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 prediction_id, so the description carries the burden of explaining it — and it says nothing about the parameter, its format, or where the ID comes from. Only the name and the uuid format in the schema give the agent anything to work with.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a prediction'), and 'for good' implies permanence. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from the sibling archive_virality_prediction, which is the nearest alternative for the same entity.

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?

'Delete a prediction for good' hints that this is irreversible, but the description never states when to choose it over archive_virality_prediction or that it is the permanent counterpart to archiving. The agent must infer the routing decision from the tool name alone.

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