Delete Preview Files

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, non-idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the project-level scope and the 'Uses QE DOM' implementation note, but omits whether deletions are reversible, whether previews regenerate, or whether the project must be saved first.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the destructive profile. However, for an irreversible cache wipe the description adds no cautionary context about consequences or recovery, leaving a gap relative to the action's risk.

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%, so the single media_type parameter with its video/audio/all options is fully documented in the schema. The description says 'all preview files', which does not mention the media-type filter at all, but the schema carries that meaning, so 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 ('Delete') and resource ('preview/render cache files') scoped to the project, distinguishing it from siblings like delete_bin, delete_sequence, and delete_project_item. Clear, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast tool.

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 guidance on when to use this versus other cleanup tools, no prerequisites, and no warning about consequences. The agent must infer that this is a cache-clearing maintenance operation rather than editorial content deletion.

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