Remove intro/outro

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the blast radius ('Projects and clips already using it keep rendering with it'), the 30-day undo window, and the return shape { ok }. These are the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs before performing an irreversible-feeling delete.

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 action and its scope, then recovery, then prerequisite, then return value. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or schema.

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 effect scope, reversibility window, prerequisite check, and response shape. An agent has everything needed to call it safely and to recover from a mistake.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Library asset id (from list_bumpers)'), so the schema already carries the meaning and the description adds nothing further about it. 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 ('Remove an item from your library and from your defaults') and immediately scopes what it does not touch. It names the sibling tools that matter (restore_bumper, bumper_usage), so an agent can place it against add_bumper/set_default_bumper without opening a 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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ('check bumper_usage first') and the recovery path ('Undo with restore_bumper within 30 days'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., preferring set_default_bumper to merely swap a default), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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