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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral detail: it succeeds even when the MediaFile row is absent or inaccessible, which is the key edge case motivating the tool. It does not discuss reversibility or post-removal state, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the repair purpose and the distinguishing alternative are both front-loaded.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, edge case, and alternative adequately. It could say what happens to the post group afterward or whether the repair is verifiable, but nothing critical 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% and both parameters are documented there with their source context, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds the ownership constraint ('owned post group') but no syntax or format detail beyond 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+resource: removing a stale/dangling media reference from an owned post group, tied to the concrete error MEDIA_REFERENCE_MISSING it repairs. It explicitly distinguishes itself from delete_media, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Use case is named (repair MEDIA_REFERENCE_MISSING) and the alternative is named with the condition that selects it (delete_media for normal existing media rows). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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