Delete Mod Image (author)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the crucial warning 'Cannot be undone,' which reinforces the destructive nature and adds value beyond the annotation. It also clarifies ownership ('YOUR mod'), implying authorization requirements. 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 with no filler. The core action and the critical warning are front-loaded, and the reference to get_mod_media is placed exactly where it's needed. Every word 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?

For a destructive delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what is deleted, ownership scope, irreversibility, and where to get the identifier. It doesn't describe the response format or error cases, but for a simple delete operation with annotations covering safety, this is adequate. The dry_run parameter is documented in the schema, so the description needn't repeat it.

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 50%: game and image_id have descriptions, while mod_id and dry_run do not. The description adds meaning by explaining that image_id comes from get_mod_media, which is useful. However, it does not explain mod_id's role or the dry_run parameter's behavior beyond the schema's own description. The description partially compensates but doesn't fully cover the gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('an image from YOUR mod's gallery'), and a scoping constraint ('YOUR mod'). It also references the source of the required identifier ('image_id from get_mod_media'), which distinguishes it from other delete tools like delete_mod_bug or delete_collection_comment. The title and description align clearly.

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?

The description implies when to use it: when deleting an image from a mod gallery, and it names the source of the image_id (get_mod_media), which is a form of alternative/related tool guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like delete_mod_video, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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