gmb_v4_accounts_locations_media_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which convey the key safety relevant behavior. The description adds no additional context (e.g., permanence, side effects, or authentication), so it neither contradicts nor enriches the annotation info.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence that conveys the HTTP method, resource pattern, and action. Every element earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter delete operation with destructiveHint annotation, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the resource pattern and the action. It could mention irreversibility, but the annotation already signals destructiveness, and no output schema means return format is not a concern.

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?

Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description includes the full path template 'accounts/*/locations/*/media/*', which effectively documents the expected format for the single 'name' parameter. This adds valuable meaning beyond the bare schema type string.

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 clearly states the HTTP method (DELETE) and resource pattern (accounts/*/locations/*/media/*), followed by the action 'Deletes a media item.' This unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like media_get, media_list, and media_patch.

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?

The description implies usage by saying 'Deletes a media item,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other deletion tools (e.g., localposts_delete) or mention any prerequisites like permissions or irreversibility. The intent is clear but guidance is minimal.

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