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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value on top by disclosing that the résumé is destroyed alongside the record, that it is permanent ('for good'), and that a 12-month automatic purge already exists. It does not say what happens to attached notes, assessments, or interviews, which is the main remaining gap for a destructive tool.

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?

Three short sentences, none wasted, with the destructive action and the résumé scope front-loaded. The trailing one-word 'Free.' is efficient as a pricing signal but reads as an abrupt fragment rather than integrated 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 one-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers the action, its permanence, the ancillary data destroyed, and a representative use case — enough to call it correctly. Only cascade behavior for related records is missing.

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 carries the burden and says nothing about applicant_id — where to obtain it, or that it must be a positive integer. Mitigating this, there is exactly one parameter whose name and the description's phrasing ('delete an applicant') make its meaning self-evident, keeping the practical risk low.

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 plus scope: 'Delete an applicant and their résumé for good' makes clear this removes both the applicant record and the résumé, not just a status change. It implicitly distinguishes the tool from softer siblings like hiring_mark_spam or hiring_move_applicant, but never names them, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'For example when they ask to be forgotten' gives a concrete triggering condition (GDPR-style erasure request), and the retention note that applicants auto-delete 12 months after last change tells the agent deletion is often unnecessary to force. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., prefer hiring_mark_spam for junk applications) or that deletion is irreversible without confirmation.

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