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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description only needs to add blast-radius detail — and it does: the removal is permanent, future auto-launches drop the file, and ads already live on the network are unaffected. Missing only failure behavior (unknown media_id) and any authorization prerequisites.

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, no filler, with the destructive/permanent nature and the id source front-loaded before the side-effect scoping. Nothing repeats the name or title verbatim.

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 destructive tool with no output schema and annotations already carrying the safety profile, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: permanence and affected scope. Only error/not-found behavior and whether a creative requires at least one media file are left unstated.

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% and both parameters are documented, including the 'from get_creative' hint that the description repeats. The phrase 'from a creative' implies id is the creative id, but no extra format or constraint detail is added 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?

States a specific verb (remove), resource (one media file inside a creative), and granularity (by media id), which cleanly separates it from get_creative, update_creative, list_creatives, and any whole-creative delete. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Points the agent at get_creative as the source of the media id, and the second sentence clarifies the decision context (affects future auto-launches only). It does not state when not to use it, e.g. whether update_creative is an alternative for replacing rather than removing media.

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