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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, yet the description adds real value: permanent deletion, an auth requirement ("Account access applies"), the repeat-deletion outcome (not_found), and explicit non-effects (no board transition, no publication, no Scan launch). "Existing platform removal behavior" stays vague and unexplained.

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?

Purpose and permanence are front-loaded and the sentences are short. The tail clauses ("no original-author-only restriction or board transition," "No external publication or Scan launch") are dense internal jargon that a reader may not decode, which trims a point.

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?

With an output schema present the return value need not be explained, and annotations cover the destructive profile; the description still supplies eligibility scope, auth, and edge-case behavior. Only the unexplained internal terms leave a small gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each param already points to the sibling tool that yields its value. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Permanently delete one saved action") and scopes it to "this recommendation's action rows," which separates it from delete_recommendation_note by resource type. An agent can tell what is being deleted 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?

It gives eligibility constraints ("Only this recommendation's action rows are eligible; system events cannot be deleted") and an edge-case rule, but never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer this over delete_recommendation_note or archive/restore siblings. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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