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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the 30-day restorability window and the fact that confirmName is only required when a protected item is present.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place, with the usage precondition front-loaded ahead of the parameter notes and the recovery caveat. No redundancy.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers when to call it, what confirmName needs, and the restore window. Only the provenance of the token could be stated more explicitly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it explains confirmName's conditional requirement ('the formula's name as the user typed it') and ties token to the list produced by delete_items. The token's exact origin is only implied rather than spelled out, so not a 5.

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 (Deletes) and resource (exactly that list), and the title/description make the two-step relationship with delete_items explicit (step 2 of 2). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling delete_items without opening either schema.

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?

'Use this only after the user has said yes to the list delete_items showed' gives an explicit precondition and names the alternative that produces the token. The when-to-use condition is unambiguous and cannot be inferred from the schema.

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