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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true; the description adds the far more important specifics: this is a soft cascading deletion affecting child tasks and bugs, it is irreversible with no restore, and it returns a deletedTasks count. The soft-delete-plus-no-restore nuance is exactly the kind of detail annotations cannot carry.

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, each earning its place: cascade scope first, then the irreversibility/usage constraint, then the return value. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers cascade semantics, irreversibility, usage constraint, and even the return value. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely 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?

Only one parameter (featureID) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 (Deletes) and resource (a feature) plus the cascade scope (with all its tasks and bugs), which cleanly separates it from siblings like task_delete, bug_delete, or feature_update. An agent can distinguish it without opening the 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?

"only at the user's explicit request" gives a clear activation condition and warns against autonomous use. It does not, however, name an alternative (e.g., feature_update or deactivating/archiving) for cases where deletion is too strong, so the routing guidance stops short of explicit alternatives.

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