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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to restate those. It adds the useful scoping detail that removal targets a single media item from a post, but it does not disclose side effects like whether removal is permanent or how it affects the post.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the only additional detail (media_id provenance) is directly useful for invoking the tool correctly.

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 destructive tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, this description is too thin. It does not explain how to obtain post_id, what owner_token represents, what a successful removal returns, or what happens when the media is not found.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the three undocumented parameters. It only clarifies media_id by pointing to get_post; post_id and owner_token are left entirely unexplained, including the role of owner_token as an authorization credential.

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 ('Remove') and a specific resource ('one photo/video from your post'), and even tells the agent where to get the media_id ('from get_post'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_media_links and get_post.

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 parenthetical 'media_id from get_post' implies the prerequisite workflow of fetching the post first, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as add_media_links for adding media.

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