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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the two traits that matter most for a mutation: the action is irreversible, and downstream artifacts ("finished videos made from it") survive. It also explains the dry-run default when confirm is omitted, which the annotations do not convey.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the side-effect scope, then the safety mechanism. Every clause carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds irreversibility, cascade behavior, and the dry-run default, leaving only minor gaps such as permission requirements or error conditions.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining the confirm flag's real semantics — that omitting it yields a report of what would be deleted rather than a deletion, which is more informative than the schema's "True only after the user confirmed the deletion." The clip parameter remains undocumented in both places, though its meaning is self-evident.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Delete one of the user's own clips") plus an ownership scope constraint, which distinguishes it from delete_character/delete_image/delete_video by resource. It stops short of naming any sibling or explaining how a clip differs from those other deletable resources, so it is clear but not maximally 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?

It supplies a concrete usage rule: without confirm=true the call is a non-destructive preview, which tells the agent exactly when to pass the flag. There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against sibling delete tools, so it is clear context rather than a full routing statement.

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