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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the phrase "for good," reinforcing permanence beyond what the annotations literally state, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior on missing IDs, or side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The idiomatic "for good" is compact but slightly informal and less precise than an explicit statement of permanent deletion.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the mutation profile, so the description need not explain return values or destructiveness. The remaining gap is the absence of any disambiguation from archive_item, which matters for a single-param delete tool in this sibling set.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter carries the meaningful hint "From list_todos." The description contributes no parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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 ("Removes") and resource ("one to-do"), cleanly distinguishing it from add_todo, update_todo, and list_todos. It does not, however, differentiate it from the sibling archive_item, which is the realistically confusable alternative given "for good" implies hard deletion.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. An agent gets no signal about whether to prefer this over archive_item or update_todo, which is the key routing decision for a deletion tool.

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