Delete Localization

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the required permission scope, the confirm=true gate, and side effects ('May share access, notify people or incur provider charges').

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining text is supporting detail. The nested markdown permission block is slightly heavy but every part (auth scope, confirm gate, side effects) 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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth requirements, the confirmation gate, and side effects — the key things an agent needs before calling. It could note irreversibility or the effect on the parent media, but the essentials are present.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including confirm's meaning. The description restates confirm=true but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Deletes a localization') that clearly positions it against create_localization, list_localizations, and get_localization in the sibling set. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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 real invocation preconditions (required token permission scope, confirm=true), which is useful guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over alternatives or what happens to the parent media, so it is adequate rather than complete routing guidance.

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