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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses what survives (previously created posts), the error behavior for out-of-workspace ids (404), the required permission (posts.draft), and the response payload. That is the full behavioral picture an agent needs before an irreversible write.

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?

Six short clauses, front-loaded with purpose and preference, then constraints. Every sentence carries distinct decision-relevant information with no repetition of the schema.

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 two-parameter destructive delete, the description covers consequence, alternative, permission, edge-case error, and return value; the output schema exists so return detail is not required. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so both id and workspaceId are already documented, and the description does not restate their formats. It only adds indirect guidance via 'Ids outside the workspace return 404', which reinforces workspace scoping but does not explain the parameters themselves.

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 ('Delete an RSS feed') plus the operational consequence ('it stops being checked for good'), which immediately separates it from pause_rss_feed. An agent can distinguish it from all listed siblings without opening a schema.

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?

'Prefer pause_rss_feed when the user may want it back' names the alternative and the exact condition that selects it, and 'Irreversible' closes the decision. No exclusions or prerequisites are left to inference.

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