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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious consequence detail beyond that: existing answers persist on past appointments but lose their label. It doesn't mention permission requirements or error behavior for a missing/foreign questionId, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, no filler, with the destructive nature front-loaded and the alternative guidance placed last where it is most actionable.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is the absence of any parameter documentation or failure-mode guidance.

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 0% and the description never mentions locationId or questionId, so neither parameter's meaning, format, or scoping role is documented anywhere. The names are largely self-explanatory, but the description does nothing to compensate 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 and resource ('Remove a booking question') and immediately scopes it as permanent ('for good'), which clearly separates it from its add_/update_/list_booking_question siblings.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('set isActive to false with update_booking_question instead') and the condition that should drive the agent there (wanting to keep existing answers). This is a textbook when-to-use-vs-alternative statement.

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