Borrar un clip

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

readOnlyHint=false already signals a mutating operation. The description usefully adds that the clip can be deleted regardless of moderation state, but says nothing about permanence/irreversibility, whether the clip is recoverable, or permission requirements — meaningful gaps for a delete tool.

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, zero padding, with the action stated first. Efficient and front-loaded, though slightly terse given the destructive nature of the operation.

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 delete with a write annotation and no output schema, the description covers scope and use case, but omits consequences of the deletion and the partially-undocumented item_id parameter, leaving an agent with avoidable uncertainty.

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 67%: cuenta and clip_uuid are documented in the schema, but item_id is not. The description adds no parameter-level detail (syntax, ids, relationship between item_id and clip_uuid), so it neither compensates for the gap nor goes beyond the schema.

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 (borra) and resource (un clip de una publicación), plus a concrete use case. It is distinguishable from ml_subir_clip and ml_clips by the deletion semantics, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Provides a clear when-to-use context ('uno rechazado, para subir la versión corregida') and a scope note ('funciona en cualquier estado de moderación'). No explicit alternatives or exclusion conditions are given, so it falls short of a 5.

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