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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing concrete side effects: it deletes the media record and cleans up external resources like the Mux video asset and storage file. It also notes the confirmation requirement, adding meaningful behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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 no filler. The primary action and key side effects are front-loaded, and the confirmation note is placed at the end without redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description is complete for a destructive tool: it states what is deleted, what resources are cleaned up, and that confirmation is required. The annotation set already covers the destructive and non-readonly nature, so 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema's descriptions already provide, so the baseline 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('media from a node'), and explicitly identifies what gets deleted: the media record and external resources. This distinguishes it from siblings like clipform_delete_node and clipform_delete_form.

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 implies when to use this tool by specifying the resource scope, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools or exclusions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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