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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true deland readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further by explaining that the deletion 'cannot be undone' and the shape is 'not recoverable,' and that the user is asked first. It also discloses that the tool changes the chart, adding context beyond what annotations alone provide. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

The description is two tight sentences that front-load the main action and then deliver irreversibility, user confirmation, and a follow-up step. Every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff.

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 low-complexity tool, the description covers the operation, consequences, user confirmation, and follow-up action. However, the parameters remain entirely undocumented, and with no output schema, the agent has no guidance on what values to pass or what the response will be. This leaves a meaningful gap in the complete call context.

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 0%, and there are two parameters (id and symbol) with no property descriptions. The description does not mention either parameter or clarify what 'id' or 'symbol' refer to. Since the description fails to compensate for the missing schema information, an agent cannot confidently determine how to populate the parameters.

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: 'Delete a drawing.' It is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools like drawing_add and drawing_style, while also explaining the consequence of deletion. An agent knows exactly what operation this tool performs.

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 provides clear context: deletion is irreversible, requires user confirmation, and modifies the chart being built. It also instructs the agent to call chart_link afterward so the person can open the chart. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the follow-up guidance makes the expected usage clear.

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