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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description still adds real value beyond them: the exact-match confirmation guard, the refusal behavior on mismatch, the active-presentation restriction, and the 30-day purge window. That is precisely the behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the recovery window, then the guard conditions, then the return value. Nearly every clause adds a distinct operational fact, so the density is earned rather than padded.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the recovery path, the guard condition, the blocking case, and the returned trash_id. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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 only 50%, so the description has to carry weight: it explains that confirm_title is the user's confirmation and must exactly match the deck's current title, with a refusal on mismatch. The slug parameter is never explained, leaving one of two parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (moves) and resource (deck, with its constituents), and immediately distinguishes the operation from its inverse by naming restore_deck as the recovery path. An agent can separate this from remove_qa_document or list_trash 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?

Gives explicit preconditions and exclusions: confirm_title must exactly match the current title or the call is refused, and the active presentation cannot be deleted. It also states the 30-day recoverability window, which tells the agent when this is the right tool versus a permanent removal path.

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