Discard a media for a project

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 known. The description still adds real context: the discard is scoped "for that project" rather than deleting the media outright, which is crucial for a destructive operation. "Discarding it again changes nothing" merely restates idempotentHint, so it earns no extra credit.

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?

Two short sentences with the trigger condition front-loaded ahead of the mechanical effect. "As the web does" is slightly informal but conveys parity with the UI in three words; nothing is padded.

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 three-required-param mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the project-scoped effect, and idempotent re-invocation. It leaves the response shape unspecified, but with no output schema that gap is minor and the annotations already flag it as destructive.

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% and every parameter is documented, including the requestId idempotency semantics, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the implicit project/media pairing, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 (discard) and resource (a catalogue media, for a given project), plus the intent behind it ("the user does not want a catalogue media for one of their projects"). That differentiates it from growwer_get_catalogue_media or growwer_delete_seller_media, though it never names growwer_undiscard_media as the inverse action.

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 the user does not want a catalogue media for one of their projects" gives a clear situational trigger, and "as the web does" anchors it to the familiar UI behavior. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or pointing at the sibling restore tool (growwer_undiscard_media).

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