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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the cascade (looks and clips go, finished videos survive), irreversibility, the confirm-gated dry-run behavior, and the ownership restriction. These are exactly the consequences an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then consequences, then the confirm gate. No sentence is filler; the clipped phrasing ('Only the user's own.') is dense rather than vague.

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 an output schema already present, the description covers everything needed: what is destroyed, what survives, reversibility, the dry-run path, and ownership limits. Return values are correctly left to the output schema.

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 50% (character is undocumented), and the description compensates by explaining that the target is one of the user's own influencers and that confirm=false yields a report-only call. It adds real semantics beyond the schema's own confirm description, though it never says what form the character identifier takes.

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) and resource (one of the user's own AI influencers) plus the cascade scope (all its looks and clips). The scope clause also distinguishes it from delete_clip and delete_video, which delete media rather than the character.

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 clear context: it applies only to the user's own influencers, is irreversible, and behaves as a dry-run unless confirm is true. It does not name a sibling alternative or state auth prerequisites, so it stops short of explicit when-not/alternatives guidance.

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