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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: earlier versions may remain in retained storage, and the operation writes to Personal Space by default, creating Personal when needed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and versioning semantics, then the target space behavior. There is no redundant restatement of the title or 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 destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, the description supplies the key missing context: exact-version deletion, retained earlier versions, and Personal Space targeting/creation. It is nearly complete, though it could explicitly connect knowledge_id to entries versus skills.

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 only 25%, so the description needs to carry more weight. It explains expected_version_id as the exact current version and clarifies space_id's default Personal Space behavior, but knowledge_id is only implied by 'entry or skill' and idempotency_key semantics remain solely in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: remove an entry or skill. It also scopes the operation to the exact current version, which clearly distinguishes it from update-oriented siblings and makes the delete intent unambiguous.

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 description implies when to use it by requiring expected_version_id, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over knowledge_update or skill_update, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage is inferred rather than guided.

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