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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the deletion is permanent, cascades to 'all its assets,' and the underlying endpoint is DELETE /videos/{videoId}. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or what happens on a missing videoId.

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?

Three short fragments, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the irreversible consequence before the endpoint. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: destructiveness, cascade scope, irreversibility, and the endpoint. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents videoId as 'The video id to permanently delete.' The description restates the same idea and adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (DELETE) and resource (video), and adds scope: 'and all its assets.' An agent can distinguish it from apivideo_get_video, apivideo_update_video, and the create/list siblings 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated — there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, and no mention of a non-destructive sibling (e.g., update or archive) for cases where removal is not intended. The 'This cannot be undone' warning gives useful decision context, but routing guidance is absent.

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