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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real context beyond that: the delete is a soft-delete, it is owner-restricted, and the artifact vanishes from public and authenticated listings. It does not clarify whether or how a soft-deleted artifact can be recovered, which is the one thing an agent would still want to know.

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?

Two short clauses, no filler, and the core action plus its main constraint are front-loaded. Every sentence carries information the agent could not get from annotations alone.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope, permission requirement, and visibility effect. It leaves one meaningful ambiguity—recoverability of a soft-deleted artifact—which matters given a version_restore sibling exists.

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 0% and the `id` parameter is never described, so the description contributes no parameter meaning. With a single self-evident identifier field, this is a minor gap rather than a blocking one, but it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 plus resource: 'Soft-delete one artifact'. The action and the scope ('one') are unambiguous, and it is clearly distinct from siblings like asset_delete or db_delete. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies the use case (removing a single artifact), and 'only the owner can delete' implicitly excludes non-owners. However, it does not say when to prefer this over related tools such as version_restore, doc_update, or asset_delete, leaving route selection to inference.

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