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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It says delete is one of the two actions but never states whether deletion is permanent, whether characters already used in created videos are affected, or whether any confirmation/undo exists — critical omissions for a destructive operation.

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?

One tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by the scope/consent constraint. No filler, though the single sentence does double duty as purpose and caveat rather than being structured into distinct guidance.

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 three-parameter tool containing an irreversible delete, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits outcome behavior, side effects on existing videos, and failure modes. The gap is material at this complexity level.

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 only 33%: `name` has no description anywhere, and the description doesn't clarify whether it is an exact identifier, a display name, or what happens on a mismatch. Only `new_name` ("rename only.") is documented, and that comes from the schema, not the description.

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 specific verbs (rename, delete) and a specific resource (the user's saved characters), plus a disambiguating qualifier — "the regular ones used by create_video" — that separates it from manage_3d_character and the change_* siblings. An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

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?

"Only on the user's own request" gives a useful consent gate, and the parenthetical implies scope versus 3D characters. But it never explicitly routes the agent away from manage_3d_character, change_character, or change_presenter, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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