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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that erasure deletes workspace data, retains the organization and its purchased entitlements, and explains the purpose of the confirmation phrase. This provides substantial transparency about the destructive action and its limits.

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 three concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action (scheduling erasure) and then explains the confirmation phrase and the deletion scope efficiently. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

The description covers the key aspects: what it does, the confirmation phrase, and the scope of deletion. However, it does not mention the return value or how to cancel a scheduled deletion (though a sibling tool exists). For a destructive operation with no annotations, these are minor gaps but not critical to correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the confirmation parameter by explaining the exact format and the safety rationale behind it, which goes beyond the schema's simple description. It does not add extra meaning for organization_id beyond what the schema states, but the confirmation explanation elevates the score.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: scheduling tenant erasure after seven days with a specific confirmation phrase. It also clarifies the scope of deletion (workspace data only, not the organization or its entitlements), which distinguishes it from other deletion-related tools like deletion_request or deletion_cancel.

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 usage (schedule erasure) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like deletion_request (immediate deletion) or deletion_cancel. It would benefit from stating when to use this tool versus those alternatives, but the context is reasonably clear from the name and description.

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