Șterge o imagine (reversibil)

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context: the operation is a reversible move between versions, not a permanent deletion, and it refuses to act when the image is in use unless forteaza=true. This goes beyond the structured hints and clarifies the actual behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key refusal condition. There is no filler, no repetition of schema details, and every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation, reversibility, and the force override. It does not describe the response format or exactly what 'between versions' entails, but the essential calling decision is well supported.

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?

The schema documents nume as 'numele din listeaza_imagini', but forteaza is only a bare boolean with a default. The description compensates by explaining that forteaza=true bypasses the usage check, giving the undocumented parameter concrete meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mută') and resource ('imaginea'), and clarifies the reversible nature by saying the image is moved between versions rather than permanently erased. It implicitly distinguishes itself from permanent-delete siblings like sterge_fisier, but it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sterge_fisier, sterge, or restaureaza. The conditional 'Refuză dacă e folosită undeva, afară de cazul forteaza=true' describes behavior rather than providing usage context or alternative routing.

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