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 covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement that the deletion is permanent, whether it requires confirmation, or what happens to associated mood drivers.

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 short sentence with the resource and keying detail front-loaded and no filler. It is terse almost to a fault, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 destructive tool whose annotations already flag destructiveness, the definition is minimally adequate. It still omits whether deletion is permanent and whether related records are affected, which an agent would want before invoking an irreversible 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry meaning, and "by id" identifies the single parameter as the entry identifier rather than a date or user reference. The UUID format and constraints are fully specified in the schema, so little more is needed for a one-parameter tool.

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 and resource ("Delete a mood entry") and identifies the keying mechanism ("by id"). The resource noun distinguishes it from the other vora delete siblings (biomarker, condition, observation, symptom), though the description itself does not name them.

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 guidance on when to delete versus when to correct via another path, and no mention of prerequisites such as confirming the entry exists via vora_list_mood first. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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