Delete media

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: no statement that deletion is permanent/irreversible, no mention of what happens to media referenced by scheduled posts, and no confirmation/undo behavior.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is the right shape for a destructive single-object delete. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, so it earns credit for efficiency.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no output schema and an undocumented required identifier, yet the description explains neither irreversibility nor how to source the ID. For a delete operation with this much potential for harm, that leaves real 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?

The single parameter mediaId has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden and it does not. It never says how to obtain a valid mediaId (e.g., from list_media or get_media) or what format it takes.

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 ("Delete one media item"), and the word "one" implicitly contrasts with the sibling delete_media_many. However, it never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is only inferable.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and does not point to delete_media_many or list_media/get_media for identifying the target item. An agent must infer the single-vs-bulk routing entirely from the tool name.

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