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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: deletion is permanent ('for good', including the answer), older_too cascades to all older answered/expired asks of the plan, and the tool remains usable after plan end.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its irreversible nature, then the cascade flag, then the exclusion rule, then the post-plan note. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 tool with no output schema, annotations already carry the destructive/idempotent profile and the description supplies the constraints an agent needs: what gets removed, the cascade scope, and the exclusion rule.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, including older_too's cascade. The description adds only the 'of the plan' scoping nuance, which is a marginal gain over the schema baseline.

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 (delete) and resource (an answered or expired question to your owner) plus a scope limitation (pending questions are excluded). An agent can distinguish it from ask_human (creates) and get_ask (reads) 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?

Gives clear eligibility conditions: only answered or expired asks, never ones still awaiting an answer, and it works even after the plan ended. It does not name an alternative sibling for the pending-question case, but the when/when-not is explicit.

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