Delete from Library

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate danger. It adds the non-obvious detail that the underlying stored file is deleted too, not just the entry, and that unconfirmed calls are safe previews — behavior annotations don't convey. Lacks mention of irreversibility/restore options, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences: destruction scope first, accepted inputs second, the confirm workflow third, plus a one-word cost note. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema, and the most consequential fact leads.

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 3-param destructive tool with no output schema, it covers what is destroyed, how to preview, how to commit, which sibling supplies ids, and that it costs nothing. The preview return value is described informally, which is sufficient given no output schema exists.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description exceeds it by explaining the tri-state meaning of confirm: absent = preview of what would be deleted, true = actual deletion, which the schema's 'true deletes' barely implies. It also notes ids/urls are alternatives rather than both required (consistent with 0 required params).

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 (PERMANENTLY delete) and a specific resource scope (images/videos from this brand's Library), and clarifies that both the library entry and the stored file are removed. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like delete_drive_file, delete_onedrive_file, and delete_brand.

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 the exact workflow: call without confirm to preview, ask the user, then call again with confirm:true. It also names list_library as the source of ids, so the agent knows the prerequisite call and the safe sequence rather than just the tool's existence.

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