delete_media

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, but the description adds critical context that the action is permanent and irreversible. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand the consequence. 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, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause earns its place. The warning about irreversibility and the pointer to cleanup_orphaned_media are both valuable and succinct.

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 operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the action, the risk, and a recommended pre-check. It doesn't mention response format, but that is less critical for a delete tool.

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% (id and fields are both documented). The description doesn't add extra meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Permanently delete'), the resource ('a media item from WordPress'), and emphasizes irreversibility. It also differentiates from the sibling tool cleanup_orphaned_media by positioning that as a pre-step rather than the deletion itself.

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?

It explicitly recommends using cleanup_orphaned_media to find unused items before deletion, providing a clear alternative and prerequisite. This gives strong guidance on when and how to use the tool safely.

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