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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds non-obvious behavioral detail beyond that: originals and thumbnails are removed while records and upstream URLs survive, which affects whether the caller can recover or re-reference the asset. It does not discuss permissions or propagation timing, so not a 5.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the safety precondition front-loaded before the effect statement. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description covers effect and retention well but leaves the input semantics and failure behavior unexplained. The annotations compensate for the safety profile, making it adequate but with a real gap around which parameter values to supply.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the two required parameters and does not. Neither 'kind' (enum upload/generation) nor 'media_id' is explained, and the reader must infer from 'owned originals/thumbnails' that the enum selects which media class is being deleted. Only a weak, implicit hint is provided.

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 names a specific operation on a specific resource and, more usefully, scopes it: 'Cleans owned originals/thumbnails; retains records and upstream URLs.' That tells an agent exactly what is removed versus preserved. It stops short of distinguishing this from sibling tools such as get_media_deletion or cancel_upload, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Request deletion only with explicit user intent' is an explicit gating condition that tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, which is unusually strong for a destructive operation. There are no stated exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., checking state first via get_media_deletion), so it falls short of a 5.

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