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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description goes further by emphasizing permanence ("The user's own data, gone for good") and disclosing an error behavior not visible in structured fields: ambiguous names are refused with candidate ids. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements.

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 the destructive scope front-loaded and the ambiguity warning last. "The user's own data, gone for good" is stylized but earns its place as a caution rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers what is destroyed, the partial-delete option, and the ambiguity failure path. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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 80%, so the schema already documents title, type, year, and what. The description only restates that title accepts a name or id and that what=both deletes both artifacts; it adds no enum nuances or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for a high-coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Deletes the user's rating of a title") plus the scope of the deletion (rating and/or saved mark). It is clearly distinguishable from rate_title by the delete verb, though it never names rate_title or any sibling as the inverse operation.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the note that a name matching several titles is refused with candidate ids tells the agent it may need year/type or an id, which is useful selection guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives framing, e.g. pointing at rate_title to overwrite instead of removing first.

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