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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the details that actually matter: all versions are removed, undo is only available for 24 hours, and the tool prompts the user for confirmation. It also ties the 'confirm' parameter to a CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED flow. This is meaningful behavior beyond the annotation layer.

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 short sentences, entirely front-loaded: what it destroys, how recovery works, and the confirmation requirement. No filler and no redundant restatement of the title.

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 single-entity delete with no output schema, the description covers consequences, recoverability, and the confirmation gate. It leaves open how an undo is actually invoked and what the response returns (e.g., an undo token or confirmation state), which is a minor but real gap.

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 fills the main gaps: 'undo' restores within 24 hours (the boolean's semantics are otherwise opaque in the schema) and 'confirm' is described as a user-confirmation step. Only 'id' ('Diagram id or key') is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 ('Deletes a diagram') and adds scope ('with all its versions'), which is the key distinction from a hypothetical soft-remove. It does not explicitly compare itself to siblings such as diagram_edit or diagram_history, but the destructive intent is unmistakable against a set of create/find/get/render 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?

The 24-hour undo window implicitly signals that deletion is recoverable, which is useful decision context, but the description never states when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., archive vs delete) or any preconditions beyond confirmation. Usage guidance is present but inferred rather than explicit.

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