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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond that: exactly what is destroyed (original plus crop/trim files), that the recording remains in history with status 'deleted', and that re-deletion is a no-op. It does not mention auth requirements or immediate vs. eventual file removal, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what gets deleted, what remains, and irreversibility/idempotency. Front-loaded with the destructive effect and zero filler.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety semantics, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: the precise effect on files versus metadata, irreversibility, and idempotent behavior. Nothing essential 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains where the id comes from (record_html or list_recordings). The description adds no parameter detail but the baseline for a single fully-documented param is high.

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 ('Delete a recording') and immediately narrows scope to the video files (original, crop, trim) while clarifying the record itself persists. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_recording, list_recordings, and record_html, which are all read-oriented.

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 description makes the destructive nature and idempotency clear, which helps the agent decide whether to call it at all, but it never names an alternative (e.g., a soft-delete or restore path) or states when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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