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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral nuance beyond that: 'Existing transaction references remain intact' and the requirement for explicit user confirmation. It does not contradict 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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place: what it does, a key behavioral consequence, and the required precondition.

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 simple three-parameter deletion tool, the description covers the action, the key behavioral effect on existing references, and the required user confirmation. No output schema exists, so return-value details are not described, but that is not a significant gap for this operation.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description's confirmation requirement is largely redundant with the schema's confirm parameter description ('Must be true. Only set after the user has explicitly confirmed this deletion.'). Thus the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific action ('Deactivate a company currency') and a specific resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like create_company_currency, get_company_currency, search_company_currencies, and update_company_currency. 'Deactivate' also clarifies the semantic difference from a hard delete.

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 states the core use case and adds a critical precondition: 'Requires explicit user confirmation.' It does not explicitly enumerate when to avoid using it or name alternatives, but the operation is distinct enough from sibling tools that the context is clear.

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