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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is to add specifics — which it does by naming the exact assets destroyed (profile, items, check-ins, public report) and emphasizing permanence. It stops short of describing the response or any post-deletion state, but for a one-way operation the enumerated blast radius is the key disclosure.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the permission gate is front-loaded and the destructive scope plus confirmation rule follow immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For an irreversible, no-output-schema deletion tool, an agent needs to know when it may fire, what disappears, and how to confirm — all three are present. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the description covers the operational semantics, leaving no material 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the schema's confirm field ('Your agent_id, to confirm'). The phrase "confirm must equal your agent_id" frames it as a validation equality check, which is marginally more actionable, but no new syntax or format detail is added.

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 deletes your Agent Coach profile') and enumerates the exact scope of what is removed: items, check-ins and public report. No sibling tool in the list performs deletion, so the destructive operation is unambiguous.

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?

"Use this only when your owner asks" is an explicit gating condition and implies a when-not (do not self-initiate). No alternative tool is named, though none of the listed siblings offers an equivalent destructive operation, so the guidance is effectively complete.

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