Media (destructive)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description earns credit for the details annotations cannot carry: clear_clip_metadata overwrites values with empty strings, delete_folders removes folder content, unlink_clips sends media offline. It also implies the plan/confirm two-phase safety model. It does not state irreversibility, permission requirements, or whether the snapshot back-up actually covers media-pool deletions rather than only timeline/project.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then a scannable action bullet list with required params marked '*', then the confirm-token rule and the batching escape hatch. Nearly every line is load-bearing for action selection or invocation.

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 tool is a multi-action destructive dispatcher with a nested schema, an output schema, and full annotation coverage; the description supplies the per-action parameter map the schema omits plus the confirm workflow, which is everything needed to call it correctly. Return-value description is unnecessary given the output schema.

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%, but the schema leaves op as additionalProperties:true and explicitly defers per-action parameters to the description, so the enumerated action/parameter pairs carry genuine meaning beyond the schema. Minor gap: optional modifiers such as delete_clip_markers' frame/color/custom_data semantics and third_party's effect on metadata are named but not explained.

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 ('Remove media objects') and then enumerates exactly which objects can be removed, so an agent can tell whether its target (clip metadata, markers, mattes, clips, folders, proxy links) is in scope. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling media_write or item_delete, so the boundary with non-destructive write/delete tools must be inferred from the action list.

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 two-step execution protocol plainly: the first call returns a plan plus confirm_token, and the same call is repeated with the token to apply. It also names an alternative explicitly ('Calls known in advance ... ONE batch_run'), which routes batch intents to the sibling. Missing any statement of when NOT to use it (e.g. in favor of media_write for non-destructive edits).

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