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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the crucial nuance that this is non-permanent: the fact is 'marked deleted but preserved' for audit and undo and 'excluded from all normal searches.' That materially changes how an agent reasons about the call beyond the safety hints.

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?

Front-loaded verb and resource, with each sentence carrying distinct information (soft-delete, preserved for audit/undo, search exclusion, usage trigger). 'Excluded from all normal searches' is slightly redundant with 'marked deleted' but still clarifies discoverability impact.

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 one-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: reversibility, search impact, and the condition for use. Nothing relevant to correct invocation is missing.

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 parameter already carries its own description ('The UUID of the fact to delete'). The description's 'by its UUID' adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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 (soft-delete) and resource (stored fact) keyed by UUID, and the parenthetical 'Smart Forget' plus the soft-delete qualifier distinguishes it from a hard destructive delete. An agent can tell it apart from siblings like get_fact or move_fact 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?

'Use when information is no longer accurate or relevant' gives a clear triggering condition. It does not name alternatives or note when NOT to use it (e.g., undoing a prior deletion), so it stops short of explicit routing.

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