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

Beyond the annotations, it adds important mutation behavior: deletion is soft, it cascades to tasks, it requires FULL access, returns 204, and needs lists:write scope. These are exactly the operational details an agent needs for a destructive call.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and cascade effect, with no wasted wording. The terse 204 and scope notes are useful facts rather than filler.

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 list deletion, it covers cascade behavior, soft-delete semantics, permission requirements, response status, and API-key scope. Combined with annotations and schema descriptions, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

The schema fully documents account and workspace, but identifier has no schema description. The description implies identifier refers to the list being soft-deleted, but adds no format or acceptance details; with 67% schema coverage, the schema does most of the work.

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 and resource: soft-delete a list and its tasks. The cascade to tasks distinguishes it from pm_delete_task and makes the operation unambiguous.

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 prerequisites such as FULL access and the API-key scope, but does not state when to choose this over alternatives like pm_update_list or when deletion should be avoided. Usage is implied by the action name and description rather than explicitly guided.

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