Delete clip

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

Goes well beyond destructiveHint/idempotentHint: it discloses the side effect ('a render in progress stops'), that the deletion is soft and restorable for DELETED_RETENTION_DAYS (7 by default), and the exact return shape { changed, restorable } despite there being no output schema. That is the full behavioral picture for a destructive mutation.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and its immediate side effect, then the undo contract and return value. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description supplies reversibility, retention duration, in-flight render behavior, and return fields. Nothing an agent needs before calling 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 already documented in-schema as coming 'from get_project or search_clips'. The description adds no format or provenance detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clip of your project'), with the scope ('one clip') making it clearly distinct from delete_project and restore_clip in the sibling list. An agent can pick it out 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?

Names the concrete alternative in 'Reversible: restore_clip brings it back' plus the retention window, which tells an agent both the undo path and its deadline. It doesn't spell out when to prefer update_clip or rerender_clip over deletion, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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