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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond by naming exactly what is destroyed, describing the interactive needs_confirmation return path, and instructing the agent to surface the study name and response count before proceeding. That is operational behavior the annotations cannot convey.

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, each load-bearing: destruction scope first, then the decision rule with its alternative, then the id source and confirmation protocol. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the destructive consequence, the safe alternative, id provenance, and the confirmation return path. An agent has everything needed to call it responsibly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning by tying the needs_confirmation envelope to the approvalId round-trip and by restating the studyId provenance, giving the agent a workflow context the static schema does not.

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 (permanently deletes a study) and enumerates the cascading scope — responses, interviews, analysis, share links. An agent can distinguish it from prism_studies_update and prism_studies_get 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?

Explicit when-to-use (a draft that won't be fielded, or a duplicate) and an explicit when-not with a named alternative and the exact parameter to use instead (prism_studies_update closed: true, because it keeps the data). This is the strongest possible routing guidance.

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