Delete Mod Video (author)

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, so the bar is lower. The description adds the important behavioral detail 'Cannot be undone,' which reinforces the irreversibility beyond what destructiveHint alone conveys. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the critical warning is separated clearly. 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 operation with no output schema, the description provides the essential facts: scope, id source, and irreversibility. It could go slightly further by noting the behavior when the video_id does not exist or belongs to another mod, but the current text is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 60%, and the description adds meaningful semantics for video_id by referencing its source (add_mod_video / get_mod_media). It also implies that mod_id must refer to the caller's own mod. dry_run and video_type remain schema-documented but are not further explained.

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 and resource ('Delete a video') and narrows the scope to 'YOUR mod', which clearly signals an author-owned action. It also tells the agent where to obtain a valid video_id, distinguishing this from image deletion tools like delete_mod_image.

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 gives clear context ('from YOUR mod') and tells the agent where video_ids come from, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as delete_mod_image. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with sibling tools.

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