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

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent/readOnly status, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: irreversibility, that public_url stops working, that unpublished pins fail to publish, and two named failure modes (not_found, insufficient_scope) tied to a required scope. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure a destructive tool needs.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the irreversible warning, then usage and return/failure details in scannable paragraphs. Dense but every sentence carries decision-relevant information; slightly verbose for a two-parameter tool.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the return fields (asset_id, deleted, requires_confirmation, referenced_pin_count, freed_bytes) and the confirm=false no-op state. Combined with failure modes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this destructive tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the confirm=false vs confirm=true semantics in terms of consequences (nothing deleted vs deletes anyway and detaches) and the referenced_pin_count meaning. The added meaning is real but largely overlaps the schema's own confirm 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 a specific verb and resource ('Delete an uploaded image or video from PinBridge storage') with clear scope, distinguishing it from sibling delete_pin/delete_board/delete_schedule by naming the asset origin (upload_asset). An agent can identify 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('clean up media from upload_asset that is no longer needed'), the alternative edge case (published pins keep their image on Pinterest), and a precondition ('tell the user which ones first') before destructive confirmation. Routing and sequencing guidance is fully spelled out.

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