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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing atomic all-or-nothing behavior ('If any id is not on the account, nothing is deleted'), cross-platform scope ('saved here or in the web app'), and that holdings are unaffected. These are material behavioral traits for a destructive operation.

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 core action and permanence warning, then adds only high-value constraints about account scoping, atomicity, and holdings. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers id resolution, atomicity, and scope. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning failure response behavior or permission requirements, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that account_id is the account and simulation ids are numbered per account, and by implying simulation_ids is a list via 'If any id is not on the account'. It does not fully specify format or multiplicity beyond that implication.

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 saved simulations'), adds scope ('from one account') and permanence. Clearly distinguishable from siblings such as delete_portfolio and save_simulation.

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?

Explains that account_id is as shown by list_simulations and that ids are per-account, giving the agent a clear prerequisite for finding valid inputs. It also clarifies scope by noting that holdings are not touched, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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