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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds value beyond them: the number is never reused, and restore recovers deciders, links, and versions. It also discloses the task-change permission requirement. What is left implicit is whether the deletion is immediate or soft, but the recovery detail largely covers the risk profile.

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 core action, then recovery semantics, then the rationale and permission caveats. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies irreversibility, recoverability detail, an audit expectation, and a permission gate. The only real gap is what a 'ref' looks like, which sibling tools likely share as a convention.

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?

There is one parameter at 0% schema description coverage. 'By ref' confirms the parameter is an identifier but adds no format, source, or example beyond the schema's field name, so the description only marginally compensates for the coverage gap.

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 (delete) and resource (decision) with an identifier scheme ('by ref'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling fenbs_restore_decision and the update/get/list decision tools by naming the recovery counterpart explicitly, so an agent can tell them apart 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?

Gives concrete invocation prerequisites: 'Say why before you do it' (a rationale must accompany the call) and 'Needs permission to change tasks' (an authorization gate). It also points to fenbs_restore_decision as the undo path, though it stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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