delete_library_metadata_by_ids_media_by_media_item

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by explaining proxy behavior — proxies are 'media optimized versions' and the default is 'false' — which goes beyond the annotations. It does not disclose wider consequences, such as what happens if the last media item of a record is deleted or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, the endpoint, and a three-line Args block. The endpoint line is slightly redundant with the tool name, and 'media_item: The mediaItem' is wasted space, but overall every other line earns its place and there is no fluff.

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 3-string-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering the destructive profile, the core call mechanics are mostly present: endpoint, required params, and proxy behavior. The gaps are the unexplained media_item identifier, zero guidance on choosing among the many similar delete_library_* tools, and no statement of cascading effects. Adequate for execution, but incomplete for confident routing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains ids ('Comma-separated list of IDs') and proxy (meaning plus default) well, but media_item is described only as 'The mediaItem' — a tautology adding nothing beyond the parameter name. Notably, the description's 'Defaults to false' for proxy also clarifies the schema's null default, which is helpful.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Delete a media item,' reinforced by the exact endpoint DELETE /library/metadata/{ids}/media/{mediaItem}. The name and path make clear this targets a media entry within a metadata record rather than the metadata record itself. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling delete_library_metadata_by_ids, so full sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description never tells an agent when to delete a media item here versus deleting the entire metadata record via delete_library_metadata_by_ids or removing streams via delete_library_streams_by_stream_id_ext. It is purely descriptive with no decision criteria or exclusions.

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