Delete a media you sell on

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the delete is permanent ('for good'), media with an order in progress cannot be deleted, and the user is prompted to confirm first — all decision-relevant facts.

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, front-loaded with the usage trigger and zero filler. The blocking condition and the confirmation step each earn their 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 two-parameter tool whose annotations carry safety and idempotency, the description covers permanence, prerequisites, and confirmation. Only the meaning of the 'id' argument and post-deletion behavior are left unaddressed.

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 only 50%: requestId is fully documented inline, but the 'id' parameter has no description anywhere. The description never mentions either parameter, so it does nothing to compensate for the undocumented identifier — an agent must infer that 'id' is the seller media id.

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 seller's media) and adds scope with 'for good', which implicitly separates it from the discard/undiscard siblings without naming them. An agent can identify the operation, though the description never explicitly contrasts with growwer_discard_media.

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?

'Use this when a seller wants to stop offering one of their medias for good' gives a clear triggering condition, and the block on media with an order in progress is a useful exclusion. It stops short of naming the obvious alternative (discard_media) that an agent should pick when permanence is not wanted.

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