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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it stresses 'permanently' deletes, requires explicit user confirmation, and reveals that the operation is refused with a CONFLICT error if queued calls or recurring schedules still reference the case. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate side effects and failure modes.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose and confirmation requirement are front-loaded, and the conflict-error condition is presented as a second, relevant sentence. Every part earns its place.

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 destructive tool with three required parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: permanent deletion, user confirmation, and a specific error condition. It does not describe the success response (likely covered by the output schema) or mention idempotencyKey explicitly, but the schema covers that. Given the tool's destructive nature and the presence of annotations, this is reasonably complete.

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 covers two of three parameters with descriptions (confirmed and idempotencyKey), leaving caseId undocumented. The description reinforces the confirmation requirement (mapping to confirmed) but does not add syntax or format details for any parameter. With 67% coverage, the description partially compensates but does not fully explain caseId or the idempotencyKey's role 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 opens with 'Permanently delete a case after explicit confirmation,' which uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools (delete_contact, delete_outbound_assistant) by naming the resource type. It also adds permanent-deletion semantics that set it apart from update_case.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite ('after explicit confirmation') and instructs the agent to 'Name the case to the user and get their approval first,' which is a clear when-to-use condition. It also discloses a failure scenario (CONFLICT error) that guides decision-making. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the confirmation requirement and error condition provide strong practical guidance.

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