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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the cascade destruction footprint (child lists and tasks go too), the auth level required, the API-key scope token, and "204" so the agent knows there is no response body. That is substantial context the destructiveHint alone does not convey.

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?

Three terse clauses, front-loaded with the action and its blast radius before the access constraints. "204." is telegraphic but carries real information; everything present earns its place.

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?

Covers blast radius, permissions, scope, and return shape for a destructive 3-param tool with no output schema. The remaining gap is what soft-delete means for recoverability and what `identifier` accepts.

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?

At 67% schema coverage the account and workspace params are well documented in the schema, but the one required parameter, `identifier`, has no description anywhere and the tool description does not clarify whether it is an ID, a slug, or a name. Baseline 3 fits a partially covered schema.

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?

"Soft-delete a folder and its child lists+tasks" gives a specific verb, an exact resource, and the cascade scope, which is what separates it from pm_delete_list and pm_delete_space. An agent can tell immediately which delete tool to reach for.

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 states prerequisites ("Requires FULL access", "API-key scope: folders:write") but never says when to choose this over deleting child lists individually or moving content with pm_update_folder. Usage is implied by the tool name rather than explained.

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