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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by spelling out the concrete consequences: irreversible, cover image is deleted with it, pending/rejected supports lose their link, and goals with approved support cannot be deleted at all. That is exactly the destructive-effect detail an agent needs before calling.

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, front-loaded with the action and its precondition, then the side effects, then the exclusion case. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or annotations.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema present (so return values need no explanation), the description covers preconditions, irreversibility, and collateral effects on related entities. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it 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?

Only one parameter, and the schema provides no description for it (0% coverage). The description implies the target is a goal but never clarifies that 'id' is the goal identifier, nor how to obtain it. Acceptable but leaves a small gap that the schema does not fill.

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 a scoping condition: 'Delete a goal that has no approved support.' That precondition distinguishes it from generic deletion and from the sibling delete_goal_update (which targets a goal update, not the goal itself), so an agent can select 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 eligibility rule for use ('no approved support') and implicitly signals the alternative path: a goal with approved support 'can only be turned off,' i.e. use update_goal/set_active_goal instead. It never names that alternative tool explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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