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

The annotations already mark the operation as destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. The added constraint that media in use by a post will not be deleted provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not specify whether an error is raised or the action is silently ignored.

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 only two short sentences, with the core action stated first and the important limitation stated second. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple one-parameter, no-output-schema tool with a destructive annotation, the description covers the essential purpose and key constraint. A minor gap is that it does not clarify what happens when deletion is attempted on media still in use by a post.

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?

The schema fully documents the single required 'id' parameter with a clear description, so the parameter semantics are already well covered. The description adds only the 'media file' context and does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Delete') and target resource ('uploaded media file'), clearly distinguishing it from deleting a post or managing other resources. The added condition about media not used by posts further clarifies scope.

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 gives clear context on when deletion is appropriate by specifying that only media not currently used by any post can be deleted. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools like delete_post or list_media, but the conditional guidance is enough to inform basic routing.

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