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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with "soft-delete", implying the record is retained rather than purged, but it says nothing about whether the tool disappears from tools_list, whether the action is reversible, or what permissions are needed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a one-parameter mutation. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is thin: no return value, no effect on listings, no recovery path for the soft delete, no error behavior. The annotation covers the danger flag but not the operational consequences an agent needs before calling 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 coverage is 0% for the single required toolId parameter, and the description offers no clarification — it doesn't say whether toolId refers to a custom tool's id versus a built-in tool, or what happens if the id is unknown. With one undocumented parameter the description should have compensated and does not.

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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource pair ("soft-delete a custom tool") and the qualifier "soft" meaningfully distinguishes the operation from a permanent delete. It doesn't reference any of the many sibling tools (tools_get, tools_update, tools_create_custom), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus tools_update (e.g. deactivating vs. removing) or any prerequisite/confirmation guidance. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name.

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