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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: the undo limitation ('only while it's open') and the need for human confirmation. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but adds significant value.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and immediately follow with critical usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, destructive action, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: deletion operation, undo window, and confirmation requirement. It is nearly complete, though it could mention required permissions or workspace context.

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 80%, meaning most parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Deletes records by id'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like napkin_tables_add_records and napkin_tables_update_records, as it is the only delete operation among the napkin table tools.

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 provides a crucial prerequisite: 'confirm with the person first', which sets a condition for use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the action is inherently distinct from other table operations.

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