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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: impact-only review, role-based permission requirements, convergence-breaking consequences, future ID minting, unused-only still removing vocabulary, and absence of LLM calls. This far exceeds what annotations alone 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?

The description is dense but every sentence carries essential information: selection method, safety default, permissions, long-term side effects, execution behavior, return value, and reference docs. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately provides decision-relevant constraints.

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 tool with four parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary decision points: what is deleted, how to limit impact, who may execute, what side effects occur, what is returned, and where to find further documentation. No critical operational context 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful relational semantics beyond the schema, such as how ids, concept_types, and unused_only interact, the owner-role requirement for clearing whole types, and the impact_only default. This lifts it above the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete concepts selected by ids, concept_types or unused_only.' It clearly identifies the object being deleted and the selection criteria, distinguishing it from sibling tools that delete schemas, attachments, or syncs.

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?

The description gives clear operational context: impact_only defaults to true, approval is needed, editor vs owner role requirements are stated, and a docs link is provided. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the selection criteria and role conditions make the intended usage clear.

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