Delete Media

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description still adds real context beyond that: soft-delete behavior, the restore window, eventual permanent purge, and the exact authorization scopes required. The trailing "may share access, notify people or incur provider charges" reads as generic mutation boilerplate and is of questionable relevance to a delete.

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 and lifecycle consequences are front-loaded in the first sentence, before the longer authorization block. The permission section with its markdown header and token variants is verbose but justified by the real authorization complexity; nothing is buried.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: reversibility window, permanent purge afterward, required confirm flag, and authorization options. Minor omissions remain (error behavior, any rate limits), but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the confirm=true gate (which the schema's confirm parameter already explains in more precise terms) and adds nothing for media_hashed_id or account. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 media") and adds a scoping trait that separates it from siblings: the deletion is soft, moving the item to Recently Deleted where it is restorable until the restore window ends. It never names the relevant siblings (restore_deleted_media, archive_media) to route the agent explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives prerequisites (required API token permissions, delegation scope, expiring token option, confirm=true) which tell the agent the conditions under which the call will succeed. It does not say when to prefer this over archive_media or restore_media, nor when not to use it, so usage is only partially covered.

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