Delete library media

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for going beyond them: it specifies permanence ('No undo'), that published posts survive, and that anything still referencing the file loses it. It stops short of stating permission requirements or whether references block or merely break the delete.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then consequences, then the irreversibility warning. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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 2-param destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior an agent needs: what is destroyed, what survives, and that it cannot be undone. It omits error/precondition behavior (e.g., whether a still-referenced upload is rejected) and permission needs, which keeps it from a 5.

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% - uploadId and workspaceId are both documented in the schema, including a pointer to list_library_uploads. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete one piece of library media') plus the scope of effect ('free its storage'). An agent can distinguish this from the other delete_* siblings (delete_workspace, delete_video_job, delete_automation) without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the consequence language ('Posts already published with it are unaffected') but the description never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives or what preconditions exist (e.g., must the upload be unfolder'd first, or is there a bulk delete). There is no delete sibling for uploads, which softens the gap, but the routing guidance is only implicit.

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