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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, and the description adds 'Permanently delete,' which clarifies irreversibility beyond the annotation's generic destructiveness. It also states the confirmation requirement, adding behavioral context. This aligns with annotations and adds meaningful detail, so the description adds value beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by the critical confirmation requirement. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or 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 simple delete operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key prerequisite (confirmation). It does not specify return values, but that is not expected without an output schema. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could mention the irreversibility explicitly (it does via 'permanently').

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 each parameter (id, company, confirm) is documented. The description mentions 'explicit user confirmation,' which reinforces the confirm parameter but does not add new semantic meaning for id or company. The baseline for 100% coverage is 3, and the description provides marginal additional context about confirmation.

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: 'Permanently delete a purchase from QuickBooks Online.' This is precise, identifies the target entity (purchase), and includes the scope (QuickBooks Online). It clearly distinguishes from other delete_* tools by naming the resource type, so an agent can select it without confusion.

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 gives one key prerequisite: 'Requires explicit user confirmation.' This is a clear condition for usage. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., void vs. delete for other entities) or mention any exclusions. The usage context is implied by the purpose, but not explicitly differentiated from siblings.

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