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

Discloses that deletion is permanent, that a minimal tombstone is retained for billing and audit, and that the operation is destructive and free. This goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining the tombstone side effect and the scope (authenticated user's own media), enhancing transparency without contradicting 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?

Two sentences with no fluff; each clause adds relevant information: what is deleted, when it applies, what is kept, and the cost implication. Highly efficient and front-loaded, with no redundant phrasing.

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 destructive tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers core behavior, eligible states, and side effects. It lacks explicit return value documentation, but without an output schema this is not critical. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema has one required parameter, audition_id, with no schema description (0% coverage). The description references 'one ... audition' but does not explicitly state that audition_id identifies the target, nor does it mention any format or validation expectations. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

Clearly states the tool permanently removes the authenticated user's media and direction for a specific audition, with eligibility limited to ready or refunded-failed states. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like revise_audition or delete_actor by specifying the action, target, and conditions.

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 provides clear context that only ready or refunded-failed auditions are eligible, which implicitly excludes other states. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the state restriction serves as a usage boundary and gives the agent enough guidance to select this tool appropriately.

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