ghl_affiliate_delete_media

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description isn't carrying the safety burden alone. It adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the exact endpoint, API version header (v3), the Sub-Account token requirement, and the required OAuth scope affiliate-manager.write. It does not state whether deleting a folder cascades to its contents, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then a one-line scope clarification, then terse metadata lines for endpoint, auth, and scopes. Slight redundancy between the title-derived first line and the second sentence, but nothing wasteful.

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 two-parameter destructive endpoint with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers operation, target, auth, and scope — enough to call it correctly. Only the folder-cascade behavior is missing.

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% with both locationId and mediaId documented, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces meaning by mapping each parameter into the DELETE endpoint path, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('delete affiliate media') plus a clarifying scope line that names both possible targets, a media file or a folder. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like ghl_affiliate_update_media or ghl_affiliate_list_media, but the destructive verb makes it distinguishable.

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?

The description implies when to use it (removing a media file/folder for a location) and states the prerequisite that a Sub-Account/location token is required. However, it gives no explicit 'use X instead when...' routing or warning about when deletion is inappropriate.

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