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

The annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those flags: soft-delete rather than hard delete, the deleted-worlds list side effect, restorability from the UI, child tombstoning, and the edit permission requirement. No contradiction exists.

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?

Four short sentences deliver the core action, side effects, access requirement, and a safety caution without redundancy. The most important facts are front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful information.

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 definition fully covers what happens, what else is affected, who may call it, and the required user confirmation. With a single parameter, a well-documented schema, and the presence of an output schema, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already has a clear description as the Mongo `_id` of the world. The description only repeats 'by id' without adding format, source, or validation details, so it doesn't add much beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('soft-delete'), a clear resource ('a world by id'), and precise scope ('the world is moved to the user's deleted-worlds list'). It also distinguishes this from sibling delete tools by noting pages and adventures are tombstoned with it, so an agent can tell it apart from imagine_delete_adventure and imagine_delete_world_page.

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 clear usage context: the caller needs 'edit' access, the operation is destructive, and the user must confirm first. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the soft-delete/restore framing plus the sibling list makes the appropriate usage reasonably clear.

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