removeCaptionTranslation

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

Annotations only flag readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the description does real work by disclosing that the transcript is untouched and that captions revert to the transcript's own language. This confirms the non-destructive framing, though it says nothing about permissions, error cases, or whether removal can be undone.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope; the second sentence delivers the non-obvious behavioral consequence. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema and annotations are thin, so the description appropriately covers the key behavioral outcome (transcript preserved, captions fall back). It is nearly complete for a mutation tool, with the only gap being the unexplained language parameter.

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 sits at 50%: projectId is documented in the schema ('from listProjects', with the editor-only omission caveat) but the required language parameter carries only a regex pattern and no description. The description mentions no parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required field.

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 and resource ('Delete one caption language layer') with scope limited to a single layer, distinguishing it from the sibling putCaptionTranslation which writes that layer. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description conveys that this removes a translation layer and restores transcript-native captions, which suggests when to use it, but it names no explicit conditions or alternatives (e.g., 'use putCaptionTranslation to add or update a layer').

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