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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that this is destructive. It adds valuable context beyond the annotations: records are normally append-only/immutable, this is a moderation exception, and deletion is scoped to a site the user owns.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action comes first, followed by the moderation context and the ownership constraint, all in the most efficient order.

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 straightforward single-record deletion with a complete schema and rich annotations covering idempotence and destructiveness, the description provides the necessary behavioral framing. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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%, so the input schema fully documents site_id, record_id, and workspace_id. The description reinforces the ownership scoping tied to site_id, but it does not add materially new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Delete one record from a collection (moderation).' The description clearly distinguishes this from deleting an entire collection or site, and the ownership qualifier further pins down the scope.

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?

The '(moderation)' framing and the statement that 'Records are otherwise append-only and immutable' give clear context for when this tool is appropriate as an exception. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the distinction from the sibling delete_collection and delete_site tools is strong enough.

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