cleanup_orphaned_media

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

The annotations include destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: it explains that deletion is opt-in via delete=true and that the default is a dry run. This discloses a safety behavior not inferable from the annotation alone, though it could further mention permanence of deletion.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no redundancy. Every clause adds relevant information: what the tool finds, the dry-run default, the delete trigger, and the scan scope.

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 tool with one optional boolean parameter, no required fields, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, scope, safety default, and how to trigger deletion. The absence of an output schema is acceptable since the tool's behavior is fully described.

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%, as the single 'delete' parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description repeats the same information ('set delete=true to remove them') without adding semantics beyond the structured data, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('orphaned media'), and defines its scope ('not used by any product or category'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_media and delete_media, which are generic listing/deletion tools.

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 gives clear usage context: it scans all products and categories, and the dry-run default with delete=true to remove items tells the agent how to invoke it safely. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the unique purpose of finding orphaned media is implicit guidance for when to use this tool.

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