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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description layers substantial extra behavior on top: a mandatory preview gate, exact-application semantics, a 30-day restore window via restore_id, refusal when the record changed since preview, and the cost ($0.10) and API key requirement. This is rich context well beyond 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?

The key point ('Preview first, 30-day undo') is front-loaded, and the paragraph is information-dense with the cost/auth notice trailing. It is on the dense side for one paragraph, but nearly every clause carries operational meaning.

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?

Given a mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers the workflow, reversibility, refusal semantics, idempotency, cost and auth requirements. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and return values are appropriately not over-explained.

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 80%, so the schema already documents preview_id, request_id, idempotency_key and restore_window_acknowledged. The description reinforces usage (pass preview_id, acknowledged: true, request_id) but adds no new format or constraint detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 name/title pair (delete_moment) plus the workflow text make it clear this applies a reviewed deletion of a moment, and the description names the prerequisite (preview_destructive_change) and the undo path (restore_change). However, it never plainly states 'deletes a moment' as a verb+resource and does not differentiate itself from the sibling delete_moment_preview. Clear purpose, but differentiation is left implicit.

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?

It gives an explicit two-step protocol: call preview_destructive_change first to store the change, then delete_moment after user confirmation with preview_id, restore_window_acknowledged: true and request_id. It also states the refusal condition (a changed record is refused) and the undo path, so when-to-use and the guardrails are fully specified.

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