Delete library item forever

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description still adds non-obvious behavior: refusal when an item is referenced, the prerequisite deletion state, and the return payload { storedBytes, message }. Not mentioning any permission/auth requirement is the only mild gap.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the discovery pointer, the refusal rule, the prerequisite, and the return shape. The irreversible action is front-loaded with 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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: prerequisites, refusal conditions, and even the return fields. Nothing required for correct invocation 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 sole parameter already documents 'Library asset id (from list_deleted)'. The description points to list_deleted for discovery but adds no format, length, or other semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (permanently remove) and resource (an already-deleted library upload and its files), plus the goal (free storage). The two-stage distinction from delete_asset is made explicit, so the agent can tell it apart from the sibling delete tools without reading schemas.

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 discovery tool (list_deleted) and states the precondition that the item must already be deleted, with the alternative to call delete_asset first. It also states explicit refusal conditions (referenced by a project, clip or live template), covering both when and when-not to use it.

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