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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description still adds value by emphasizing the removal is permanent (irreversible) and by imposing the cross-location ownership constraint, which annotations do not 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?

Two tight sentences with the action and its effect front-loaded, followed by the parameter constraint. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 three-parameter delete tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, parameter provenance and a precondition. Return-value behavior is not described, but that is a minor gap for a straightforward deletion.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by stating that media_name originates from google_business_media_list and must belong to the target location, adding provenance and validation meaning the schema alone does not.

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?

The description pairs a specific verb ('Permanently remove') with a specific resource ('a photo or video from a Google Business Profile location'), which cleanly separates it from sibling tools google_business_media_create and google_business_media_list 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?

It tells the agent where the required media_name comes from ('the full resource name from google_business_media_list') and adds a precondition ('must belong to this location'). There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the sourcing pointer is concrete routing context.

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