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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true): it discloses that the delete is soft and restorable from the UI, that nested pages and adventures are tombstoned with it, and that unauthorized contributors receive a 404 rather than a permission error. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive cascade.

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?

Front-loads the operation and its soft-delete nature, then layers restoration, cascade, authorization, and the confirmation requirement in five tight sentences with no filler. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable 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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: reversibility, cascade scope, authorization rules, and the confirmation requirement. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 100% and the single id parameter is documented as the Mongo `_id`. The description only echoes 'by id' and adds no format or lookup guidance, so the schema carries the full burden. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Soft-delete a world by id') and immediately qualifies the operation as a soft-delete rather than a hard purge. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like imagine_delete_adventure and imagine_delete_world_page without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: caller must be the world's owner or an admin with Admin Mode on, and contributors get 404. It also instructs 'Confirm with the user first.' It stops short of naming an alternative tool or the exact condition under which a caller should pick this over another delete, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not matrix.

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