Remove Download

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description meaningfully extends this by specifying exactly what is destroyed (local DB record only, not the on-disk file) and that re-download remains possible — genuinely clarifying the scope of a destructive op. Auth, rate limits, and the interaction of the two optional params are unaddressed.

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 compact sentences, each earning its place: scope of deletion, re-downloadability, and the file_id format. The most important constraint (files remain) is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers scope and id format adequately, though it leaves the two optional params' mutual exclusivity and the neither-provided case unaddressed.

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, but the description adds real meaning beyond the generic schema labels by documenting the video file_id format ('video:<video_id>'). It does not clarify whether file_id and course_id are mutually exclusive or what happens when neither is supplied.

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 (삭제/remove) and resource (다운로드 기록/DB record) and immediately scopes it: only the DB record is removed, disk files remain. An agent can distinguish this from real file deletion among the download siblings (eclass_download_file, eclass_file_handoff) 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?

The line '삭제 후 재다운로드가 가능합니다' implies a use case (clearing history to re-download), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative among siblings. Usage is left to inference.

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