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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: cascading deletion of outgoing edges, idempotency (deleting a missing id returns deleted:false rather than erroring), and that deletion is permanent. Also discloses the return shape, none of which appears in the structured fields.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information – side effect, when to use, idempotency, permanence, return value – with no repetition. The core action and cascade behavior are front-loaded before the caveats.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what gets removed alongside the concept, that the operation is permanent and idempotent, and what the response contains. No meaningful gap remains.

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 the single id parameter is already fully documented including an example, so the description doesn't need to re-describe it. It only adds a behavioral note about ids that don't exist, which is more about idempotency than parameter meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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 resource plus the side effect ('remove a concept ... and all of its outgoing edges'), which tells the agent exactly what the operation touches. It is clearly distinguishable from upsert_concept, the only sibling that writes concepts.

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 an explicit when-to-use case (wrong, obsolete, or junk notes such as test/probe nodes) and names the alternative for the opposite case: prefer upsert_concept to correct a note you want to keep. The exclusion plus named alternative is exactly what routing needs.

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