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

The description discloses the destructive, permanent effect and the two-step confirmation safety mechanism. This aligns with the destructiveHint=true annotation and adds important behavioral context about the first call not deleting anything.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured, with the core action stated first followed by the necessary procedural detail. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the destructive confirmation flow is fully described, the agent has all necessary context to invoke the tool correctly. The sibling tool list further disambiguates it from related deck/card operations.

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 already covers both parameters with clear descriptions, and the tool description reinforces the confirm_token lifecycle. The added value is modest because the schema itself is highly informative, but the confirmation flow is well explained.

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 clearly identifies the action (delete deck), the resource affected (deck and its cards), and the permanent nature of the operation. It also distinguishes this from delete_card by specifying the deck-level scope.

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 provides explicit step-by-step guidance: omit confirm_token on first call, return the token, and only pass it back after user confirmation. This leaves no ambiguity about when and how to invoke the tool.

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