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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the deletion is permanent, and posts referencing the URL keep the URL text while the underlying file is destroyed — a non-obvious side effect. Auth requirements and failure modes are still unstated, keeping it from 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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct load: what happens, the downstream consequence, and the required user confirmation. The destructive action is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the remaining agent-relevant gaps: permanence, referential side effects, and the confirmation step. Nothing needed to invoke it safely 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% and the single media_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its source (list_media). The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 (delete) plus the exact resource (a file from the media library and storage), and the scope word 'permanently' sets it apart from reversible operations. Among the many delete_* siblings, the resource noun alone tells an agent which entity is affected.

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?

Gives one clear procedural rule — 'Confirm with the user first' — which is genuinely actionable. However, it never states when this is the right tool versus alternatives (e.g. removing a post that references the file, or unlinking rather than deleting), so usage is only implied.

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