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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true; the description goes further by explaining the mechanism (a repeated client_request_id returns the recorded action instead of re-running) and the authorization/proposal model. It does not say whether deletions are permanent or recoverable, or what cascade effects hit dependent objects like connections, which is the remaining gap for a destructive tool.

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?

Five sentences with no filler and the core purpose front-loaded in the first clause. It is dense but each sentence contributes a distinct fact (scope, modes, refusal, idempotency); the long enumeration in sentence one slightly crowds the opening.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the authorization model, refusal behavior, and idempotency for a destructive, open-world action. The only material omission is `workflow_id` and any statement about permanence or side effects of the deletion.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning; the description adds that `action` is a registry name for a delete action paired with that action's own `arguments`, and reinforces the idempotency contract of `client_request_id`. `workflow_id` is never mentioned in the description and remains undocumented beyond its schema type.

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?

Names a specific verb (delete) plus the exact resource categories it removes (drafts, records, knowledge sources, reports, connections, published posts), and explicitly bounds scope with "It refuses every other kind of action." An agent can distinguish this from xora_read, xora_publish_or_send, or xora_cancel_action without opening any 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?

Explains the mode-dependent routing: with xorventa:execute it runs under owner switches, with xorventa:prepare and no execute it becomes a proposal confirmed at owner_confirmation_url. That is real when-to-use context, but it never names a sibling alternative (e.g. when to prefer xora_cancel_action or xora_read) or states prerequisites for obtaining those scopes.

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