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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the stored video is deleted too, and the physical side effect is scoped to finished submissions across all three platforms.

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 tight sentences; the destructive scope is front-loaded and the constraint trails it without waste. Every clause carries 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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers side effects, eligibility, and scope adequately. Return behavior after deletion is not addressed, a minor 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?

Only one parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including the 'on any platform' note. The description adds no further syntax or format detail, so 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 (finished video submission) and enumerates the eligible statuses. It does not name the sibling cancel-submission-tool, so an agent must infer the alternative for in-flight submissions.

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?

Gives a clear eligibility condition (published, drafted, failed, or cancelled) and an explicit exclusion ('In-flight submissions cannot be deleted'). It stops short of routing the agent to the sibling that handles the excluded case.

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