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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds value by specifying 'kalıcı olarak' (permanently), which is more specific than the generic destructive hint, and by emphasizing the requirement of explicit user consent. However, it does not describe side effects, reversibility, or what happens to related data beyond permanence. The added context is useful but not extensive.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loading the core action and then adding the critical usage requirement. It contains no filler, repeats no schema or annotation information, and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the action, its permanence, and the explicit user request requirement. It does not mention what happens on success or failure, but that is not necessary given the lack of an output schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use it, though it could benefit from a brief note on the id parameter (which is already scored low in parameter semantics).

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%, meaning the parameter 'id' has no description in the schema. The description itself does not explain what the 'id' refers to or any constraints on it. While the tool name implies the id is the media asset's identifier, the description does not explicitly state this. With no parameter documentation in either the schema or the description, the agent has to infer the meaning, which is a significant gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 the action: 'Bir medya varlığını kalıcı olarak siler' (permanently deletes a media asset). The verb 'delete' and resource 'media asset' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling delete tools (delete_folder, delete_idea, delete_post) by naming the resource type. It also adds the qualifier 'kalıcı' (permanent), which reinforces the intended effect.

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 provides one usage constraint: 'Kullanıcı bu yıkıcı işlemi açıkça istemiş olmalı' (user must have explicitly requested this destructive operation). This tells the agent when it is appropriate to invoke the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the presence of sibling delete tools, some guidance on distinguishing them would be valuable, but the description is not entirely lacking.

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