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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the deletion is irreversible, that a dry-run report is produced when confirm is not true, and that the underlying clip survives the operation. These are exactly the behavioral traits 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the destructive nature and the confirm gate are stated immediately, and the clip-survival note prevents a likely misconception.

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?

Covers scope, irreversibility, the confirm dry-run, and collateral effects on related content. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and nothing an agent needs to call this destructive tool 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 coverage is 50%: confirm is documented in the schema, but the required 'video' parameter has no schema description. The description implies it must refer to the user's own finished video, adding modest meaning, but gives no ID format or source guidance to compensate for the gap.

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 (a finished video), and scopes it to 'one of the user's own' videos. It also disambiguates from the sibling delete_clip by clarifying that the source clip remains, so an agent can distinguish it from other delete_* tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive semantics and the confirm gate, but the description never states when to choose this over alternatives (e.g. delete_clip) or any prerequisite conditions such as required permissions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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