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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that already-written readings survive deletion (the series outlives the instruction) and that the call may return `needs_confirmation`. It still doesn't say whether the removal is reversible or what happens to scheduled future runs.

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?

Three sentences, all earning their place: the action, the data-retention consequence, then the alternative route. The destructive consequence and the safer alternative are both front-loaded before any edge-case detail.

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, no-output-schema tool this covers the essentials an agent needs: what is destroyed, what survives, when to avoid it, and the confirmation possibility. Missing only secondary details such as permission requirements and effect on pending/scheduled feed runs.

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 67% and the description adds no parameter detail of its own. The mention of a `needs_confirmation` result loosely gestures at the otherwise-undocumented `approvalId` parameter, but syntax and usage for `workspace`/`approvalId` remain entirely on the schema side.

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 feed') and immediately differentiates itself from the neighboring mutation tool by naming `ledger_feeds_update` as the softer alternative. An agent can tell deletion from pausing without opening either schema, despite the somewhat softer title 'Stop a metric feed'.

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 an explicit conditional alternative: 'Prefer pausing with ledger_feeds_update when the user might want it back,' which tells the agent when NOT to use this tool. It stops short of stating prerequisites (permissions, workspace scoping) or the inverse condition for choosing delete outright.

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