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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: revisions are also deleted, removal is permanent, and there is a per-call cost with no charge on failure.

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 short sentences, front-loads the core action and permanence, and includes cost information without unnecessary wording. Every sentence adds useful 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?

For a simple one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering read/write and destructiveness, the description supplies the critical missing context: permanence, revision cascade, and cost behavior. The main remaining gap is that it does not describe the id parameter, but the overall definition is nearly 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 description coverage is 0% and there is no parameter documentation in the description. Although the single parameter is named "id" and the tool is about articles, the description does not clarify that this is the article ID, its expected source, or any constraints.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it deletes an article, and adds that the deletion is permanent and includes revisions. It is clear enough to distinguish from save/get/list article tools, though it does not explicitly compare itself with sibling deletion or unpublish paths.

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 phrase "for good" implies this is the permanent-removal path rather than a reversible or visibility change, but the description does not name alternatives such as unpublishing or updating an article. Usage is therefore implied rather than explicitly guided.

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