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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing exact side effects: template columns are silently cleared, pass strip overrides are nullified, deletion always succeeds when the image exists, and the operation requires images:manage scope. The description is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then details consequences, preflight guidance, scope, and API mapping. It is slightly repetitive ('Delete an image' / 'Deletes an image'), but every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 operation with no output schema, it tells the agent what gets destroyed, what cascading effects occur, how to assess blast radius, what scope is needed, and which HTTP operation it maps to. Missing return-value details are minor given the behavioral coverage.

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%, so the schema already documents id and x_app_id. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Delete an image' and clarifies it deletes both 'storage file + DB row'. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like uploadImage, listImages, and getImageUsage.

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?

Provides clear operational guidance: it tells the agent to call GET /manage-images/{id}/usage first when blast radius matters, and notes the scope requirement. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling delete tools, but the guidance is contextually sufficient.

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