Delete an upload

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description goes well beyond them: the resource is made unusable immediately yet physically erased only after 7 days, retention is conditional on another upload of the same picture existing, and there is a named failure mode (upload_in_use) plus a cost note. The only gap is that it doesn't say what the call returns or what happens to dependent runs/media after erasure.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information (lifecycle, refusal condition, cost), with the most decision-relevant fact front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the crucial lifecycle and error behavior an agent needs. It falls short only on parameter provenance and post-deletion effects on related entities.

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 one parameter, upload_id, with 0% schema description coverage — the schema only supplies a regex pattern. The description adds no meaning about the identifier at all: not where to obtain an upload_id (e.g., from create_upload or get_upload), nor whether it accepts other formats. It therefore fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Delete an upload") and immediately characterizes the deletion semantics, so an agent cannot confuse it with a read like get_upload. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from other delete siblings such as delete_asset or delete_run_media, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

It supplies real preconditions — deletion is refused with upload_in_use while an unfinished run uses it — which is useful when-to-use context. However, it never states when an agent should choose delete_upload over the adjacent delete_asset or delete_run_media tools, so the alternatives dimension is left to inference.

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