Delete clip

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavior the annotations do not: a render in progress stops, the item becomes visible in Deleted, deletion is reversible for DELETED_RETENTION_DAYS (7 days default), and storage still counts until purge_clip. It also describes the return payload fields, which is especially valuable because no output schema exists.

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 dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then lifecycle consequences, then the bulk alternative, then return fields. Every sentence carries operational information and there is 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 destructive single-item delete with no output schema, the description covers the full operational picture: what happens to an in-flight render, where the item goes, how long it is restorable, when storage is actually freed, the relevant sibling tools, and the return object fields. Nothing essential is missing.

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% and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Clip id (from get_project or search_clips)'). The description does not add any further meaning about the id parameter, so the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Delete one clip of a live project') and immediately distinguishes scope from the bulk sibling ('For several clips of one project use delete_clips'). An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from delete_clips, purge_clip, and restore_clip.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative for bulk deletion ('use delete_clips') and explains the lifecycle context: the clip appears in list_deleted, is restorable via restore_clip for the retention period, and only stops counting toward storage after purge_clip. That gives clear when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else guidance.

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