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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose the key behavioral trait: deletion is soft, retained 30 days server-side, and recoverable. It still omits what happens to associated habit logs/streaks and whether any permission is required, but the retention semantics are a substantive disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the recovery window, then the usage guard. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

A destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema needs to cover reversibility (it does) plus the parameter and downstream effects. The undocumented 'id' and unstated effect on habit history leave it only minimally complete.

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 0% for the single required parameter 'id', and the description says nothing about it — not whether it is the habit id vs. routine id, nor its format. The description does not compensate for the documentation 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 (delete) and resource (habit), so an agent can identify the operation. However, 'or routine' muddies the boundary against the sibling delete_routine, leaving some ambiguity about which tool owns routine 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?

'Only when the user asked to' gives a real gating condition for use, which is more than most tools offer. But it never names the alternative (delete_routine for routines, update_habit or log_habit for other habit operations), so the sibling overlap is left unresolved.

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