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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing a deliberately misleading success response: it always reports success regardless of ownership or existence, to prevent probing. This is critical non-obvious behavior that an agent must know to set correct expectations. The annotations only mark idempotent and destructive; the description explains the exact masking behavior, providing high transparency.

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?

The description is two concise sentences in paragraph form, with the core purpose front-loaded. The behavioral caveat is placed after the primary purpose and adds necessary detail without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with rich annotations (destructive, idempotent) and an output schema. The description covers the destructive nature, the uniform response, and the reasoning behind it. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, and the output schema obviates the need to describe the return structure.

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?

The schema description for notification_id already covers that deletion is permanent and succeeds silently if the id is absent or foreign, so the schema has 100% coverage. The tool description reinforces this but adds no new parameter-level details (e.g., format, constraints). It therefore only meets the baseline for this dimension.

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?

The description opens with 'Delete one of your notifications,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It also notes permanence ('This cannot be undone'), and the singular 'one' distinguishes it from the sibling batch tool. The purpose is unambiguous and easy to act on.

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 gives context that this is for a single notification but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like colony_delete_notifications_batch or colony_delete_read_notifications. There is no 'use this for X, use Y for Z' guidance. The usage is implied by the singular wording, not spelled out, so it falls short of explicit guidance.

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