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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description goes well beyond that: it discloses irreversibility, that stored files are also destroyed, the exact refusal error code (design_in_use), and the precondition triggering that refusal. That is meaningful behavioral context the structured fields do not carry.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive nature and the irreversible warning, and every sentence contributes routing or safety information. The trailing '[#02e216]' artifact is stray noise that slightly undercuts otherwise clean structure.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, side effects on stored files, the failure mode, and the safer alternative. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly or avoid it.

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% with only two parameters, so design_uuid and the optional workspace are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, which is the expected baseline here.

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 ('Permanently delete') and resource ('a design and its stored files'), and makes the scope of deletion explicit rather than tautological. An agent can distinguish it from archive_design and delete_product without opening any schema.

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?

Names the exclusion condition ('Refused with design_in_use if any live product still uses the design'), names the alternative tool ('archive_design is the safe alternative'), and gives a default recommendation ('Use archive_design unless the design genuinely must be erased'). When-to-use, when-not, and the alternative are all explicit.

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