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

Goes well past the annotations (destructiveHint/readOnlyHint) by disclosing concrete side effects: the connector, runs and schedules stop at once, nothing is hard-deleted, and the deletion is reversible via edit_department. This reversibility and the side-effect scope are exactly the context an agent needs for a destructive operation.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then side effects, then ownership/precondition caveats. No sentence is redundant.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything else needed: what gets stopped, reversibility, ownership requirement, and org-department exclusion. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 100% and the single 'department' parameter is documented in the schema as a slug sourced from findagent_list_departments. The description refers to the handle/department but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Delete/archive) and resource (PERSONAL department), and immediately scopes it to departments 'you own' versus organization departments. An agent can distinguish this from findagent_edit_department, findagent_create_department, and sibling delete tools without opening a 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?

Explicit when-to-use constraints: only personal departments, only by the owner, and an org department 'is not archived here'. It also explains the not-found outcome for non-owned handles and routes restoration to findagent_edit_department with status:"draft".

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