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

Even with annotations already marking destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: soft-delete semantics, movement to the deleted list, restoration via UI, tombstoning of pages, required permission, and the instruction to confirm with the user. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear model of side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by key behavioral consequences and usage warnings. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter delete tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential action, side effects, permission requirement, restore path, and safety caveat. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single `id` parameter, describing it as the Mongo `_id` of the adventure. The description adds no further parameter detail, but with full schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Soft-delete an adventure by id.' It also clarifies the deletion mode (soft-delete) and names the target resource (adventure), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like imagine_delete_adventure_page or imagine_delete_world.

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 usage context: the caller must have 'edit', must confirm with the user first, and the operation is destructive. It also explains that the adventure is moved to a deleted-adventures list and can be restored via the UI, which gives practical guidance. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for when-not-to-use, but the resource scoping is clear.

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