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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds the non-obvious behavioral requirement of obtaining in-chat consent exactly once before invoking. It stops short of stating whether the deletion is irreversible, what precisely is removed, or what the tool returns on success.

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 usage trigger, with each sentence carrying either a trigger, a consent rule, or an exclusion. There is no restatement of the name or title and 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 destructive, zero-required-parameter tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the consent workflow and exclusions that matter most. The remaining gap is scope clarity — what data set is actually destroyed and whether it can be recovered — which is consequential for an irreversible operation.

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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions, including the tap token's relationship to keep_progress and the confirm flag's meaning, so the description need not repeat them. The 'ask once' and 'clear yes' language loosely reinforces the confirm parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: deleting the user's 2hives progress/data, which is clearly distinguishable from the read-oriented siblings like get_my_2hives_data and my_progress. What it does not pin down is the scope of the deletion — whether 'progress or data' means progress records only, all account data, or the account itself.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('when the user asks to delete their 2hives progress or data'), an explicit procedural requirement ('ask once, in the chat, before calling it'), an explicit prohibition ('not without the user's clear yes'), and explicit exclusions ('not for medical questions, emergencies or a crisis'). An agent knows both when to call it and when to hold back.

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