removeMedia

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the non-obvious nuance that the destructive operation only detaches the media reference while 'the file on disk is left alone', and discloses a hard dependency-based refusal condition. That is material behavior an agent cannot infer from the hints.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the blocking condition, then the non-destructive caveat. No sentence is 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 no statement of what the call returns or whether the removal can be undone (e.g. via createCheckpoint/restoreCheckpoint). Otherwise the hazards of a mutation with no return contract are well covered by the refusal rule and the disk-file caveat.

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 both parameters document their own source (getCurrentDocument's assets, listProjects) and the projectId omission rule, so the description adds no parameter-level detail. 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 and resource ('Remove a file from the project's media') and immediately scopes it against siblings by clarifying that the on-disk file survives. An agent can distinguish this from removeClip/removeModifier without reading any 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?

Gives an explicit precondition for failure ('Refused while the timeline still uses it') plus the exact prerequisite actions and the sibling tools that perform them (removeClip, removeModifier). This is when-to-use and when-not-to-use in two sentences.

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