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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the deletion is permanent and the file vanishes from any queues that reference it, which an agent could not infer from the annotation alone. It stops short of stating auth requirements or response behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its permanence, then the cascade effect, then the API mapping. Nothing is redundant and nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the key risk (irreversibility) and the side effect (removal from referencing queues). It omits permission/auth requirements and confirmation expectations, which are the remaining gaps for a delete operation.

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% and the single 'media' parameter is documented as a storage UUID in the schema. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond that, so the 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 ('Permanently delete') and resource ('a media file from the library'), and the resource noun cleanly separates it from sibling deletes like delete_folder, delete_stream, and delete_tag. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive framing ('Permanently', 'Irreversible'), which signals caution, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g., update_media to modify metadata instead of deleting).

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