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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior beyond that: items are relocated to the default list rather than destroyed, and the default list is protected from deletion. It stops short of describing permissions, reversibility, or the response shape.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: action, side effect, and constraint. Front-loaded with the action and free of filler.

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 one-parameter delete with an output schema and safety annotations already present, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it deletes, the non-destructive side effect on items, and the one case where it fails.

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 id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the default-list caveat. The description reinforces the constraint but contributes no additional syntax, format, or source-of-id detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 (delete) and resource (household's named shopping list), scoped to distinguish it from remove_shopping_list_item and delete_task. The 'named' qualifier and the default-list exception make the target unambiguous.

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 implies usage through the constraint that the default list cannot be deleted, which tells the agent when the tool is inapplicable. However, it never names an alternative tool or explicitly says when to prefer this over update_shopping_list or item-level removal, leaving the sibling routing to inference.

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