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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the call returns the deleted tutorial id, child videos and voiceover lines survive and require their own deletes, and re-deleting is a no-op. This discloses cascade behavior and return content that the annotations alone do not.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the use condition, followed by return/cascade behavior and the scope exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

Covers purpose, permanence, cascade consequences, idempotency, and scope exclusions; an output schema exists so return values need not be elaborated further. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents tutorialId. The description adds nothing about the identifier format or constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) and resource (tutorial), and explicitly carves out scope boundaries against siblings: not for removing one language or device version, and children like videos/voiceover lines need their own delete. An agent can distinguish this from delete_video/delete_speech without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('someone wants a tutorial permanently deleted') plus when-not ('Not for removing one language or device version'), and it routes the agent to separate delete operations for the tutorial's videos and voiceover lines. Nothing is left to inference.

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