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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds what the annotations cannot: the action is irreversible, voice recordings are deleted immediately, non-waiting ids are skipped and counted rather than erroring, and the Premium requirement. That is substantive disclosure of side effects and partial-failure semantics beyond the structured fields.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its limit, then the constraint, then the irreversibility warning. No filler; each sentence carries distinct 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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be documented, and the description covers the remaining agent-critical facts: the 100-item cap, Premium gating, irreversibility, recording deletion, and skip-and-count behavior for invalid ids. Nothing essential to calling this correctly 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the load. It explains that ids must be waiting supporters, that non-waiting ids are skipped and counted, and that the cap is 100 — matching the schema's maxItems/minItems. It does not clarify ordering or duplicate-id behavior, but it adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare integer array.

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 ('Reject'), resource ('supporters'), and scope ('up to 100 waiting... at once'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling reject_support (singular) and bulk_approve_supports. An agent can route to it without opening the 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 a clear operational precondition ('confirm the list with the creator first') and a plan gate ('Part of Premium'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name reject_support as the single-item alternative or state when bulk is preferred, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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