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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by adding 'Permanently' (no undo) and a concrete failure mode — submitted postcards are rejected — which annotations alone do not convey. Missing auth/permission context keeps it off a 5.

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?

Two sentences, the destructive action and its scope are front-loaded, and the constraint follows immediately. There is no 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 one-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers action, scope, irreversibility, and the key rejection case. It omits what a successful response returns, though no output schema exists to cover that gap.

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 100% and the single `id` parameter includes a format example (pc_abc123). The description adds nothing beyond that, so 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 and resource ('Permanently delete a draft postcard') and narrows the object to drafts only, which separates it from submit-postcard-tool and update-draft-tool. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from the state restriction rather than stated.

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?

'Submitted postcards cannot be deleted' gives a clear exclusion condition that an agent can check before calling. It does not name what to do instead when the postcard is already submitted (e.g., no deletion path exists), leaving that inference to the agent.

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