Delete media upload

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, and the description adds context that the deletion is limited to staging/uploads in R2, not durable copies. There is no contradiction, and the description enriches the behavioral understanding.

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?

The description is two sentences, each adding critical information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently covers scope and exclusions without 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema present, but the description lacks parameter guidance and prerequisites (e.g., the upload must exist). It adequately covers the overall purpose and behavioral context but leaves parameter details unresolved.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. However, it provides no additional meaning for the single required parameter 'uploadId' beyond its name. The agent lacks guidance on how to obtain or format this ID.

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 clearly states the specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('short-lived MCP staging media upload from R2'). It also distinguishes from a sibling tool (upload_video) by noting what it does not affect, ensuring the agent understands the exact scope.

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 explicitly marks the tool as an 'Internal/app staging helper' and clarifies that it does not delete scheduler durable copies created by upload_video. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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