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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real value on top: the required `Manage Queue` permission, the `feedback:requests:write` API-key scope, and the exact 204 response. The irreversibility warning plus the confirm-first rule gives the agent the operational and authorization picture the annotations cannot express.

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 (action, permission, return code, safety rule, auth scope) with the destructive nature front-loaded. No repetition and nothing that could be cut without losing a fact the agent needs.

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, the description covers what an agent needs to call it safely: authorization requirements, the 204 success signal, and irreversibility. The only remaining hole is the meaning/format of `shortId`, which is left entirely unspecified.

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?

With 67% schema coverage and the two optional parameters (account, workspace) fully documented in the schema, the baseline is 3. Crucially, the sole required parameter `shortId` has no description in the schema and gets no explanation here either — the description never clarifies that this is the short identifier rather than a numeric ID, leaving the most important input ambiguous.

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?

"Permanently delete a feature request" is a specific verb + resource + permanence qualifier. It is unambiguously distinguishable from the sibling fr_delete_bug because the resource noun itself (request vs. bug) carries the differentiation, so an agent can select without opening a 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?

It gives a clear conditional rule of engagement: confirm with the user before calling unless intent is unambiguous. That tells the agent *how* to use it, but it never names an alternative path (e.g. moderating/hiding instead of deleting) or states when deletion is inappropriate versus a softer sibling like fr_moderate_request.

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