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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and it discloses the destructive scope well: it deletes both the submission and its stored video, and it clarifies that in-flight submissions are off-limits. It does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or side effects beyond the stored video, but the core behavior is clearly and honestly stated.

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 sentences contain all essential scoping information with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the key exclusion is stated immediately after.

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, no-output-schema delete tool, the description covers the action, eligible states, platforms, and the critical in-flight constraint. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explicitly direct the agent to cancel-submission-tool for in-flight submissions or describe the result of a successful deletion.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents submission_id as the ID of the submission to delete on any platform. The description adds mild semantic value by specifying which submission states are eligible, but it does not add syntax, type, or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Delete'), a precise resource ('finished video submission and its stored video'), and enumerates the eligible statuses and supported platforms. It also draws a clear boundary against in-flight submissions, which distinguishes it from the sibling cancel-submission-tool.

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 indicates when this tool is appropriate: for published, drafted, failed, or cancelled submissions on any supported platform. It explicitly warns that in-flight submissions cannot be deleted, but it does not name the alternative (cancel-submission-tool) for that case, so the routing guidance is not fully explicit.

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