delete_gallery_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers the critical facts: it is a HARD delete (irreversible), gallery_item_media rows cascade, and underlying media rows and storage files survive because other items may reference them. That is exactly the blast-radius information an agent needs before a destructive call. It omits permission/auth requirements and behavior on a missing or referenced id.

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 destructive nature, and each sentence carries distinct information (operation, cascade, preserved data). 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?

For a one-parameter delete with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the destructive semantics and side effects that matter most. It stops short of stating authorization needs, error behavior for an unknown id, and whether a response is returned, which leaves minor gaps.

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 0% and the description never mentions the single 'id' parameter. The parameter is a required uuid named self-evidently, so there is little hidden meaning to add, but the description provides no clarification of which id is expected. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a trivially-named single parameter.

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 ('Hard-delete a Gallery item') and the 'Hard-delete' qualifier immediately distinguishes it from soft-delete or detach-style siblings such as detach_gallery_media and update_gallery_item. An agent can tell 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 implied by the name and the destructive wording, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus update_gallery_item, detach_gallery_media, or a media-level delete. No prerequisites, no alternatives, no when-not guidance.

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