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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key side behavior (refusal while tasks reference it) and the ordering remedy. It stops short of mentioning irreversibility or error responses, but the core behavioral contract is visible.

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, each earning its place: one states the primary action, the other states the key constraint. The sentence is front-loaded with the behavior, and the remediation is appended clearly. No fluff or repetition.

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 delete tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent what will be removed, when the operation will fail, and how to avoid the failure. This is enough for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage — the only parameter `id` is clearly documented as 'as returned by register_destination'. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 action ('Remove') and resource ('claimed URL'), which clearly identifies the destination being deleted. It differentiates from the sibling delete_task by focusing on the destination object, and the phrase 'claimed URL' adds a subtle scope distinction beyond the name/title.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: it states that deletion is refused while a task points to the destination and prescribes the correct sequencing ('delete the task first'). It would earn a 5 if it explicitly named the sibling delete_task, but the instruction is already concrete enough to steer an agent toward the right action.

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