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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not the sole source of the safety profile. It still adds real value beyond them: the deletion is permanent, and the operation fails with a 409 while a quiz still references the file, telling the agent how to handle the error.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the irreversible nature of the operation, then the failure condition. There is no wasted wording and nothing to trim.

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 what matters: permanence, idempotency context from annotations, and the 409 conflict case. The only missing piece is how to obtain assetId.

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?

There is one parameter (assetId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description should carry the meaning. It is a single obvious identifier and the name is self-explanatory, but the description never says where assetId comes from (list_media / get_quiz_media) or what shape it takes.

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 ('Permanently delete a file from your library'), which separates it from delete_quiz, delete_template and other sibling delete tools. It stops short of naming which library/media listing the files come from, so a little disambiguation is left to inference.

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?

Implies the when: removing a file from the library. It also gives a real precondition (refused with 409 while a quiz still uses it), which is actionable guidance. It never names alternatives or says when not to delete, e.g. whether to remove quiz references first.

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