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

Well beyond what the annotations already declare: it discloses that disk is freed, that the call blocks until the move lands (up to 30 s), how to interpret transitional states (stopping/starting/destroying mean still in flight), and that repeat calls wait on the same move. That turn idempotency into an operational rule, not just a hint flag.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: action, timing of use, parameter alternative, and return/call-again semantics. The primary action is front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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 destructive, no-output-schema, two-parameter tool, the description covers the gaps that matter: what is destroyed, what is released, how long the call may block, and how to interpret an intermediate result. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to avoid a premature retry.

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 50% — `briq` is undocumented in the schema, but the description clarifies the relationship between the two parameters ("Pass `stack` instead of `briq`" = mutually exclusive alternate targeting) and that stack expands to every briq in the stack. It does not say explicitly that at least one of the two must be supplied, which matters since required is empty.

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 ("Destroy a briq and free its disk") and immediately distinguishes two modes: a single briq vs. a whole `stack`. Against siblings like briq_stop or briq_fork, an agent can tell this is the terminal teardown operation without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ("Do this when you are done") and explains the stack form as "a fork you are done with", which is a clear when-to-use signal. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g., briq_stop for pausing rather than destroying), so the exclusion set is implied rather than stated.

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