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

Even though annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, the description adds crucial context: exactly what gets destroyed, permanence of deletion, and the recovery cost in re-synthesis and credits. This meaningfully raises the agent's awareness of consequences beyond the structured annotations.

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, minimal filler, and well structured: the core action is front-loaded, followed by the essential permanence/cost caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter, single-purpose deletion tool with an output schema present, the description covers all decision-relevant facts: operation scope, idempotence, permanence, and recovery implications. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

The input schema already fully documents speechId with 'Speech id to delete', so the description adds no additional per-parameter meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 delete'), a precise resource ('one Tutorializer speech record plus its S3 audio and alignment files'), and clearly distinguishes this from sibling delete_video and other project/speech tools. An agent can immediately understand what the tool acts on and with what effect.

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 intended usage clear: use this tool when a speech record and its stored audio/alignment files should be removed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the specialized resource scope gives sufficient context for selection.

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