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

Beyond destructiveHint=true, it discloses irreversibility, the downstream consequence on views (an EMPTY slot), and the required prerequisite action, plus an ownership constraint. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry, so the description meaningfully extends the safety profile.

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 verb, resource, and irreversibility in one sentence, then states the downstream risk and the prerequisite. No filler; every clause carries operational meaning.

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 no explanation, and the destructive annotation is fully amplified by the description. Prerequisite, ownership scope, and consequence of forcing are all present, leaving nothing an agent needs to call this 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%, so both parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds a semantic layer by constraining the target to bundles 'you authored' and reinforcing the force-delete consequence (empty slot), giving slight value over 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete an archive bundle') with an ownership scope ('you authored'), and the 'archive bundle' framing cleanly distinguishes it from the many sibling delete tools (delete-template, delete-content, delete-single-page). An agent can route to it without opening 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 a concrete prerequisite ('re-wire or unbind the template first') and mandates reading a contract doc via get-skill-doc before the first call. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with sibling delete tools, but the precondition is clear and actionable.

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