neurover_delete_media

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description only needs to add workflow context; it does add the dryRun-first sequencing and the user-consent gate. However it never explains what confirm or allowUsedOnCanvas change about the destructive act, which is the most consequential behavior for a delete tool.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the safety rule. Very little wasted wording; the 'Сначала dryRun' clause is terse enough to be slightly ambiguous about whether dryRun is required or just recommended.

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?

A destructive, open-world tool with 7 undocumented parameters and no output schema. The description omits what happens on confirm=true, what allowUsedOnCanvas permits, and whether workflowId scopes the asset lookup, leaving too much for the agent to infer before an irreversible call.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only covers mediaAssetId/expectedName ('по id и точному имени') and hints at dryRun; confirm, allowUsedOnCanvas, account and workflowId are left entirely unexplained, including the safety-relevant ones.

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 target: delete a particular file from the media library, identified by id and exact name. That distinguishes it in practice from sibling cleanup and reference-copy deletion tools, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 real routing guidance: run dryRun first, and only delete when the user asks for it directly. It does not mention when a different tool (e.g. delete_reference_copies or the cleanup_* family) is the better choice, so it falls short of an explicit alternatives map.

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