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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing recoverability, in-progress repeat semantics, partial_recovery conflict reporting, and the special handling for tasks and tracker definitions. These details align with destructiveHint and idempotentHint rather than contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses dense semicolon-separated rules with no filler. Each clause encodes a distinct behavioral or parameter rule, though its telegraphic density makes it slightly harder to parse than a more narrative form would be.

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 an 8-entity-type, 10-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers all entityType behaviors, idempotency rules, and sibling handoffs. It could add return-shape or conflict-response detail, but the operation and recovery guidance make it sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

With 70% schema coverage, the description adds real combinatorial meaning that the schema alone does not convey: it ties projectId/expectedRevision/operationId to project behavior, states per-entity id limits, and points tag/link removal to the correct parameters. It does not fully explain every parameter interaction, but it substantially 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?

The description opens with 'Move to Trash,' a specific verb and resource that immediately identifies the tool's destructive function. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming penny_edit for restore/cancel and stating that tracker definitions are archived, not deleted.

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 explicitly routes tasks to penny_edit and states that tracker definitions are archived, giving clear when-not-to-use guidance. It also identifies penny_edit op:restore as the recovery alternative and explains the idempotent retry behavior for in-progress operations, leaving little to inference.

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