Media Asset Remove

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: the removal cascades into invalidation of source-dependent caches. It still does not state that the operation is permanent/irrecoverable.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and the scope, with the side effect tacked on efficiently. Zero wasted words.

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, the description plus annotations (destructive) and the existing output schema cover most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is that permanence/irreversibility and the recommended way to obtain a valid asset_id are never stated.

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% with a single fully documented asset_id parameter (SHA-256 pattern, 'paths are forbidden'), so the schema carries the load. The description's 'verified owned asset' adds a mild ownership/verification nuance but no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

Names a specific verb (remove) and resource (verified owned media asset), and the qualifier 'verified owned' narrows it against the many sibling media/image/audio tools. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like media_assets_list or media_info, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisite that asset_id comes from media_acquire or media_assets_list, and no warning about when removal is inappropriate or irreversible. The agent must infer all routing from the name.

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