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

Annotations already declare write/destructive/idempotent, but the description adds the crucial non-obvious trait: the delete is a *soft* delete, so the video record semantics differ from a hard purge, and the storage render survives. It does not say whether the soft-deleted video is recoverable, how long it is retained, or what is returned, which keeps it below the top mark.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The destructive tag and the core action are front-loaded, and the sibling reference sits at the end as a caveat rather than interrupting the main instruction.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, what is preserved, and which sibling handles the preserved part. The only missing piece an agent might want is the success response or what an unknown id does.

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 description coverage is 0% and both parameters are optional with no typed description, so the description must carry the load. It does clarify that the video is 'found by video_id or video_uuid', implying alternative selectors, but it does not state precedence if both are given or the consequence of passing neither, leaving a real ambiguity.

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 and resource ('Soft-delete a video'), names the two lookup keys, and scopes it to 'the caller's merchant'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from delete_storage_file, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

Gives a clear routing rule: use this for the video record, use delete_storage_file when the uploaded render must also be removed. That is an explicit alternative with a condition. The remaining gap is that it never says how to obtain the video_id/video_uuid (e.g. via list_videos) or what happens if neither is supplied.

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