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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is permanent and irreversible, and warns about the lack of recovery options. This fully discloses the destructive nature of the tool, which is the critical behavioral trait an agent needs to know.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core action and permanence stated upfront. The warning is concise and placed after the action. The description is highly efficient and well-structured.

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 a single parameter covered by the schema, the description is complete. It covers the critical context (permanence, need for confirmation) and does not require an output schema. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly.

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?

The schema description for the only parameter, id, is 'The id from list_saved_filings,' which provides clear semantic meaning. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (Delete), a resource (saved filing), and a method (by id), and adds 'permanently' to clarify the nature of the operation. It is distinct from siblings like save_filing and list_saved_filings, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear guidance to confirm with the person before calling, and warns that there is no undo or trash. It implies when to use (when a permanent deletion is intended) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like untrack_company_deadlines or other deletion tools. The guidance is helpful but not exhaustive.

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