Delete clip forever

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds real value beyond them: the refusal behavior for non-deleted clips, the fact the rendered file is removed and storage freed, and the return shape { storedBytes, message }. There is no output schema, so naming the return fields is a meaningful supplement.

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, front-loaded with the destructive action, then prerequisites, then scope alternative, then return value. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what it destroys, the required precondition, the per-project alternative, the refusal case, and the response fields. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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 parameter's schema description already says 'Clip id (from list_deleted)'. The description repeats that provenance but adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond the schema, 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 ('Permanently remove a deleted clip ... and its rendered file') plus the outcome (storage freed). It is clearly distinguished from sibling mutations like delete_clip (soft delete) and purge_project (project-scoped purge).

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite (clip must already be deleted; call delete_clip first), how to locate the target (list_deleted), and the alternative for a different scope (purge_project for deleted projects). No inference required.

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