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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the removal path, per-batch limit, the muted-playback/video-only-through-custom-footage rule, and required-description conditions. This is well beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the bulk is a media-specification block (JPEG/PNG/480×480/15 MB/video durations) that reads like it was copied from an upload tool and is only partially relevant to classification. The 'at most 8 files per call' note also sits oddly against a schema that takes a single required media_id.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation detail beyond hints, the description is nearly complete — it covers removal, required descriptions, and tagging rules. It omits any permission/auth requirement, but otherwise an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is already 80%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by specifying which photos need `angle` tagging, when `description` is mandatory, and the ≤240-character limit. It mostly reinforces rather than extends the schema's own angle enum descriptions.

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: 'Classifies a product photo or video (its view `angle`, its `description`) or removes it.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning classification/tagging rather than uploading (create_media_upload / finalize_media_upload) or viewing (view_images).

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 a concrete workflow: look at each photo get_project lists with `needs`, view it via view_images, then tag with what you see. It also routes videos to add_moment (type custom-footage). However, it never explicitly contrasts with the upload tools that create the media this tool then tags, so the 'when-not' boundary is left implicit.

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