delete_media

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint/readOnlyHint, so the safety profile is covered, yet the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: deletion is deferred, the file is only removed once nothing references it, and the grace period is 14 days by default. This reference-counting and timing disclosure is exactly the kind of operational context an agent needs for a destructive tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the retention/alternative behavior. No filler; both sentences carry required information.

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 destructive, output-schema-less tool the behavioral story (what is removed, when, and the alternative) is well covered. The main gap is the unexplained required hash parameter, but the deletion semantics are complete enough to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It maps the target contexts ('a workout or a custom exercise') loosely onto workoutId and customExerciseId, but the required 'hash' parameter is never mentioned, nor is the relationship/mutual exclusivity between the two id parameters.

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 action (remove a photo/video) and its scope (from a workout or custom exercise), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like write_attach_media and read_media_usage. The only weakness is the euphemistic 'take off' phrasing instead of an explicit delete, but the resource and target are clear.

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 names the alternative delete_media_sweep and the condition that selects it (immediate deletion vs the default 14-day grace period), giving clear routing guidance. It stops short of stating when to use this over simply leaving media in place, but the alternative condition is explicit.

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