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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description goes further by clarifying the action is archival ('Archiviert') and that sent letters retain their original. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations, explaining what actually happens and what is not destroyed.

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 action is front-loaded and the structure is logical, but the content is duplicated in German and English, and the long list of document types (cancellation, invoice, reminder, etc.) adds little functional value. A shorter single-language version would convey the same meaning more efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, two parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral consequences: future sends use remaining letterheads, and sent letters are preserved. It does not mention reversibility or what happens if the design is not found, but these are minor gaps for an archive/delete operation.

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 schema describes designId well enough, but the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The optional 'reasoning' parameter is left undocumented, and schema description coverage is only 50%. The description does not compensate for this gap, though the most important parameter is already clear from the schema.

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 ('Archiviert (loescht)') and resource ('gespeichertes Briefpapier (Briefdesign)'), making the action unmistakable. It also differentiates from sibling tools like letter_design_save, letter_design_list, and letter_design_preview by clearly indicating this is the archival/deletion operation.

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 provides clear decision-relevant context: after deletion, new sends use remaining letterheads, while already-sent letters keep their original for auditability. This implies when the tool should be used and states no exclusions. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the usage context is strong.

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