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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the blast radius the annotations cannot convey: the action is irreversible ('This cannot be undone') and, critically, what is NOT affected ('job preferences and matches do not change'). Combined with the required confirmation-before-call guidance, this is richer behavioral context than the structured fields provide.

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?

Front-loads the action and its side effect, then layers the ID source, the irreversibility warning, the negative scope, the alternative tool, and the follow-up in five short sentences. Every clause carries distinct information; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 mutation this covers the full decision loop: what it does, what it destroys, what it leaves intact, when not to use it, which sibling to use instead, where the ID comes from, and what to do next. An output schema exists, so the absence of return-value explanation is not a 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% for the single integer parameter, so the baseline is 3; the description goes one step further by naming the source of a valid value ('Pass saved_search_id from getmattered_list_saved_searches'), which tells the agent where the ID comes from rather than just its type. It stops short of describing failure modes for an invalid or already-deleted ID.

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 one of the user's saved searches') plus an immediate consequence ('stop its email alerts'), which separates it cleanly from getmattered_update_saved_search and getmattered_create_saved_search. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance ('call it only when the user asks to delete that search, and name the search first') and names the correct alternative for the adjacent-but-different intent ('Do not use it only to turn alerts off; use getmattered_update_saved_search'). It also prescribes the preceding step (list_saved_searches) and a next step, leaving nothing to inference.

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