delete_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does useful work: it names the backing store (ChromaDB transcript chunks) and explicitly limits blast radius by stating the original video file is NOT deleted. It still omits irreversibility/reversibility, required permissions, and any side effects on in-flight searches.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the most important constraint (file preserved) is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 the destructive scope is well covered for a one-parameter tool. Only the irreversibility/permission angle is left open, which is a minor gap for a delete operation.

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% for the single video_path parameter, and the description adds no format or syntax detail beyond 'the specified video'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (remove/delete) and resource (video + indexed data), and immediately disambiguates the scope: indexed data goes, the source file stays. An agent can distinguish this from ingest_video, search_video, ask_video and list_videos from the description alone.

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 when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are named (e.g., when to delete vs. re-ingest, or whether removal requires re-indexing afterward). Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb.

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