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

The annotations already cover idempotence, read-only state, and destructive/scope hints. The description adds useful context beyond that: the call is limited to the explicit project_id and returns the project identity with its result. This clarifies scope and observable output without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The scoping/result information is front-loaded, and the actual delete action follows immediately. Every sentence carries useful information.

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 simple two-parameter delete operation, the description provides the id source, project scoping, and a note about the result. Since there is no output schema, the result mention is useful. It could be slightly more precise, but not enough to be a major gap.

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 id parameter has no schema description, but the tool description adds the essential point that it comes from get_edl. The project_id parameter is already documented in the schema, so the description compresses the project scoping correctly while covering a 50% schema coverage gap.

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 names a concrete action ('Delete'), a specific resource ('a sound effect'), and gives the id source ('from get_edl'). It also states the project-scoped behavior up front, which separates it from broader or unscoped tools and avoids a mere restatement of the title.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a caller wants to delete a sound effect and has an id from get_edl. It also documents the project_id prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or point to alternatives like move_sfx, add_sfx, or other remove_* tools.

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