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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful non-obvious trait: deletion does not cascade to linked media, which persists in the workspace. However, it omits irreversibility, permission requirements, and what happens to shot ordering or scene references after deletion.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the important caveat immediately after. Nothing is wasted and nothing critical is buried.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, a destructive delete tool should ideally state irreversibility, error behavior, and any auth requirements. The description covers the key non-cascade semantics but leaves the rest of the destructive-operation profile unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100% — all three required parameters (workspaceId, editId, shotId) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Delete a shot") and immediately scopes the blast radius by clarifying that linked media documents are not removed. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the non-cascade note implicitly separates it from tools like delete_shot_media_ref or delete_asset.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_scene, delete_shot_media_ref, or moving a shot instead of deleting it), nor any prerequisites such as permissions or required prior state. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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