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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description goes further by stating the erasure is permanent and that films already using the piece keep it and keep working — the exact blast-radius information an agent needs. It also encodes the consent requirement as a behavioral rule, not just a field constraint.

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 consequences, with the sibling pointer in parentheses. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the parenthetical reference is slightly cryptic for an agent unfamiliar with the UI name.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations, the definition covers scope, prerequisites, and downstream effects on dependent films. The only gap is what a successful call returns (no output schema exists), which leaves the agent to infer the response.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented, including the confirm precondition. The description largely restates the confirm requirement and adds only the implicit scoping of id to the user's own pieces, 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 and resource ('Take one of the user's own pieces off their account') and scopes it to 'Mes pièces' / mine=true, which separates it from delete_film and community-facing siblings. An agent can identify the target set 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?

Gives the discovery path for obtaining an id (search_library { mine: true }) and a hard precondition: confirm: true only after the user has agreed. It does not spell out when-not cases (e.g., piece used by a film the user may still want), but the gating condition is clear.

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