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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by stating exactly what is destroyed (the row and any written body), the side effect on in-flight work (a queued write is cancelled), and the non-trivial two-call confirmation protocol with confirmToken. This is the operational detail an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 destructive scope, then alternatives, then the confirmation protocol across tightly packed sentences with no filler. Length is appropriate for a destructive operation.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the first-call return (a summary plus confirmToken) and the required second call, covering the tool's full call sequence. Nothing needed to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so id, site, and confirmToken are already documented in the schema, including the confirmToken's two-call purpose. The description restates the confirm flow rather than adding new field-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (delete/remove) and resource (plan entry) plus the precise scope of entry types affected (scheduled, written, held, failed, draft). It explicitly demarcates from the sibling delete_article, so an agent can distinguish the two without reading schemas.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (unpublished entries), when-not (published articles -> use delete_article), and a companion action (use exclude_topic if the keyword should never be re-picked). Routing to alternatives is fully spelled out.

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