Remove videos from a folder in one call

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but they cannot express that destruction is conditional. The description resolves that ambiguity by disclosing the default is unfiling back to the main library and that delete_videos_too is permanent and irreversible — key safety context beyond the annotations. It stops short of covering permissions or side effects on the library itself.

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 tight sentences with the safe default front-loaded and the destructive caveat immediately after. The only redundancy is the opening sentence largely restating the title, but nothing else is wasted.

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 batch mutation tool with full parameter documentation in the schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral risk (unfile vs. permanent delete) and the confirm requirement. It omits the 100-item cap and any note on what the call returns, which are minor given schema coverage.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by explaining the causal link between delete_videos_too and the confirm parameter ('which is why it needs its own confirm'), which the schema documents only in isolation. It does not add syntax or format detail beyond that.

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 states a specific verb (remove), resource (videos), and container (folder), plus a batch scope implied by 'in one call.' It is clearly distinct from siblings like add_videos_to_folder and remove_video_from_showcase, which operate on different containers without the batch semantics.

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 gives useful in-tool guidance on when to set delete_videos_too and confirms the gating role of confirm, which is real usage direction. However, it never routes the agent against alternatives such as delete_video or add_videos_to_folder, nor states prerequisites like folder ownership, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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