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

With destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false already declared, the description adds substantial value beyond annotations: it explains the soft-delete model, that references become null or shrink, that slugs are freed, and that incoming references persist to enable restoration. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive call, and it is consistent with the annotations.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the core action, then consequences in order of impact (visibility, references, slug, restorability). No filler and no repetition of annotation data.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation with annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: reversibility, reference fallout, and slug reuse. It stops short of stating error behavior for a missing or already-deleted item, and says nothing about the required identifier.

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% and there is one required parameter (itemId), so the description must carry the burden — but it never mentions the parameter or what identifier it expects. The meaning of itemId is only guessable from the tool name, leaving a clear gap that a single clause could have closed.

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 opens with a specific verb and precise semantics: "Soft-deletes the item", immediately distinguishing this from a hard delete. It also spells out the observable effects (gone from reads, lists, backreferences), which lets an agent understand the operation's nature without opening the 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated — an agent can infer this is the removal path and that cms_items_restore brings items back, since the description says the item "can be restored". However, no sibling tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or precondition list.

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