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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses side effects on dependent data (template columns and pass overrides are silently cleared/nullified), notes that deletion always succeeds when the image exists, and specifies the exact HTTP mapping and scope. This adds significant behavioral context.

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 well-structured, starting with the core action, then side effects, usage guidance, scope, and API mapping. Every sentence adds value; no filler or redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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?

The description covers deletion behavior, side effects, prerequisites, scope, and API mapping. For a delete operation with no output schema, this provides all necessary information for an agent to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (id and x_app_id), so the schema already documents them fully. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Deletes an image') and the exact scope ('storage file + DB row'), distinguishing it from sibling delete tools for other resources (deleteApp, deleteTemplate, etc.). The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly instructs to use GET /manage-images/{id}/usage first to understand blast radius, providing a clear prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly contrast with other delete tools, but the resource distinction is inherent and the guidance is actionable.

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