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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds the material consequences: destruction is permanent, affects everyone in the project, and any schedule running the notebook disables itself the next time it comes due. That cascade behavior is exactly what an agent needs and is not in the annotations.

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 sentences, no filler: the destructive scope comes first, the schedule side effect second, and the alternatives last. Front-loading the permanence warning is the right ordering for a delete tool.

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 full annotation coverage and a complete parameter schema, this covers what remains: irreversibility, blast radius, side effects on schedules, and escape hatches. No output schema exists but none is needed for a delete.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including where to obtain each id, so the description correctly leaves them alone. It adds no syntactic or format detail of its own, which is the expected baseline case.

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 (delete) and resource (notebook) with explicit scope: the output saved in it, permanently, for everyone in the project. It also names the two siblings an agent might confuse it with, so the tool is distinguishable without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives: fastero_set_schedule_enabled when the notebook should be kept but scheduled runs stopped, and fastero_write_notebook when cells should be replaced. Both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-instead are stated.

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