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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent, but the description adds important behavioral context: scan history is permanently deleted and dynamic links stop working. This helps the agent understand the real-world consequences beyond the annotation flags.

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?

The description is just two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and consequence, then immediately provides the alternative usage guidance.

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 delete tool with output schema and sibling context, the description is sufficient. It covers what is deleted, the downstream effect, and when to choose a sibling alternative, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The schema has only one required parameter, id, with zero description coverage. The description refers to 'a QR code' and conveys that id identifies the QR code, but it does not explain the id format or how to obtain it. Since the parameter is simple and self-explanatory, the risk is low, but the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete a QR code') and the resource, and adds specificity by noting scan history is also removed 'for good'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling update_qr_code by contrasting permanent deletion with pausing.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool: 'prefer update_qr_code with paused=true if the print is still out there.' This is a direct usage rule that routes to the correct sibling alternative.

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