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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It explicitly states the action (purge from RAM) and the required mechanism (destroy token), making the destructive nature evident. It doesn't cover edge cases like invalid tokens or success responses, but the core behavioral trait is transparent.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence delivers all essential information without any waste. Key terms are front-loaded ('Immediately purge', 'destroy token'), making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 action with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what happens, to what, and how. It doesn't describe return values or failure modes, but for this simple tool, that's an acceptable 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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (vaultId and destroyToken), so the description adds little beyond reinforcing their role. Schema coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline for this dimension.

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 uses a specific verb 'purge' and names the exact resource ('Flashpaper secret vault') and mechanism ('destroy token'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like create_secret_burn_link and check_secret_status by focusing on immediate destruction.

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 description clearly conveys this is for immediate destruction using a destroy token, implying a distinct use case from checking status or claiming secrets. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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