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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds genuinely new context: it is an archive-style removal, new sends fall back to remaining letterheads, and already-sent letters retain their original for auditability. It does not mention permissions or error behavior, but the reversibility/audit semantics are a real addition beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is padded with an irrelevant enumeration of letter types (Kündigung, Rechnung, Mahnung, Angebot, Vertrag, Behördenpost) and duplicates the entire content in German and English. The core behavior — archive/delete with fallback to remaining letterheads — is buried rather than front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the full load, and it does explain the post-deletion state and auditability well. However, it omits prerequisites, whether/how the design can be restored, and any mention of the second parameter, leaving meaningful gaps for a destructive tool.

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%: designId is well described (DE+EN) in the schema, but the second parameter, 'reasoning', has no description anywhere and the tool description never mentions it. For a destructive operation where a reasoning/audit field likely matters, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 — archives/deletes a saved letterhead (Briefdesign) — which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like letter_design_save and letter_design_list. The parenthetical 'archiviert (löscht)' introduces mild ambiguity about whether this is a hard or soft delete, but overall the operation is identifiable.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternatives are named. The agent can infer that this removes a letterhead, but nothing directs it to letter_design_list/letter_design_preview first or explains prerequisites for deletion.

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