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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable specifics: it states the deletion is permanent ('cannot be undone') and describes the cascading effect on posts ('any post still using it will lose it'). It also clarifies that the stored bytes are removed, which goes beyond the annotation's binary safety flag. No contradiction with 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 zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and scope, and the second sentence immediately conveys the irreversible and cascading consequences. Every clause earns its place; no unnecessary details or repetition.

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 delete tool with a single parameter and output schema present, the description covers the essential behavioral context: permanence and impact on posts. It doesn't discuss error cases or idempotent behavior, but those may be covered by the idempotentHint annotation and output schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it could have benefited from a brief note on the `id` parameter.

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 schema has one parameter `id` with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. It does not explain that `id` is the file identifier, nor provide any format or context. Since the description carries no burden for parameter explanation but fails to add any meaning beyond the schema's bare type, it falls short for a low-coverage situation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Remove' with a clear resource 'a file' and explicitly mentions 'stored bytes,' making the operation unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like media_update (update) and media_upload (upload) without naming them, because the verb and scope are precise. The title reinforces the purpose.

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 implies usage (delete a file) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It offers a contextual warning about posts losing the file, which hints at consequences but not at selection criteria. There is no mention of 'use media_update instead' or conditions for deletion.

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