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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds substantial behavioral detail: deletion is permanent, collated round text is lost, child moves are detached back into the feed, and operator authorization is GM-only. This is exactly the context needed to use a destructive tool safely.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying essential information: the core operation, the side-effect on child moves, and the authorization/destructive warning. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With one fully documented parameter, a provided output schema, and rich annotations, the description still adds all necessary behavioral context: permanence, child-move behavior, GM restriction, lost text, and user confirmation. No relevant gap remains.

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%: the only parameter, id, is already described as the Mongo _id of the move. The description confirms deletion happens 'by id' but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: permanently delete a move by its id. It also states the key nuance—child moves are detached, not deleted—which distinguishes it from related move/session tools.

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 clearly states when it applies (GM-only) and instructs the agent to confirm with the user first, which is critical usage guidance. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or excluded cases, but the GM-only gate and destructive warning provide clear context.

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