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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explicitly warns 'This cannot be undone' and specifies that all assets are deleted, not just the video record. This gives the agent critical behavioral context for a high-impact call.

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?

Four short, information-dense phrases: the verb, the endpoint, the permanence warning, and the scope of deletion. No filler words or redundant restatement of the schema or annotations.

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 one-parameter destructive DELETE operation, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: what it acts on, that it is permanent, and the HTTP endpoint. The absence of an output schema is not a real gap for this operation.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single required parameter, videoId, with the description 'The video id to permanently delete.' The tool description adds little semantic detail beyond echoing the endpoint placeholder, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently DELETE a video and all its assets.' It also provides the HTTP endpoint 'DELETE /videos/{videoId}', making the operation unmistakable. It clearly stands apart from sibling tools like update_video or get_video as the only delete operation.

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 clearly establishes the tool's context: it is a write operation, it is destructive, and it permanently removes the entire video. It does not explicitly list alternatives or state 'use this instead of X', but the absence of any other delete tool in the sibling list makes the intended usage clear.

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