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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates exactly what is destroyed (notes and attachments), specifies the authorization model, and states the 403 outcome for unauthorized callers. This is rich behavioral context layered on top of the structured hints.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler, and the destructive scope is front-loaded before the authorization and confirmation guidance. Every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. With the destructive scope, authorization rules, and confirmation nudge all present, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly and safely.

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 id parameter is already fully documented as the Mongo `_id`. The description only restates "by id" without adding format or sourcing detail, so it neither compensates for nor exceeds the schema. 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 ("Permanently delete a session") and immediately defines scope by naming the collateral data removed (notes, session-image/battlemap attachments). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like play_update_session and play_get_session without needing the 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 explicit caller conditions (owner, admin with Admin Mode on, campaign GM or accepted gamemaster) and the negative case (players get 403), plus an operational instruction ("Confirm with the user first"). It doesn't name alternative tools, but the when-to-use/when-not guidance is concrete and unambiguous.

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