app_event_video_clips_delete_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it discloses nothing. For a DELETE operation the agent needs to know whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, whether it requires specific auth/roles, and what happens to dependent app event localizations; none of that appears.

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?

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness, and the parenthetical immediately duplicates the same string with zero added information. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

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 operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no safety or side-effect detail, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot make an informed decision about invoking this tool from what is provided.

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 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as 'the id of the requested resource'. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 is essentially the endpoint signature restated: 'DELETE /v1/appEventVideoClips/{id}' duplicated in parentheses. It names a verb and resource, but that information is already fully carried by the tool name, and it never explains what an app event video clip is or what deleting one means. This is tautological rather than clarifying.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever about when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for adjacent operations. The huge sibling list includes app_event_video_clips_get_instance, app_event_video_clips_update_instance, and app_event_video_clips_create_instance, and nothing distinguishes this delete from them or states any prerequisite.

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