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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable warning context: without a date range, matching records are deleted across history. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the destructive scope, which is important for safe invocation.

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 sentences deliver the essential action, the filter requirement, and the critical warning without wasted words. The warning is placed clearly and front-loaded relative to the user's need to avoid accidental mass deletion.

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, all parameters are described in the schema, and annotations indicate the destructive nature, the description covers the critical additional context: the filter requirement and the full-history risk. Nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds the general rule that at least one filter is required and highlights the date-range behavior, but it does not need to restate individual parameter meanings.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete custom goal events by filter') and clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like get_goals or track_goal by indicating it is a deletion operation with filtering. It also adds 'custom' to clarify the target event type.

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?

The description provides clear operational guidance: at least one filter is required, and a date range is important to avoid deleting across all history. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling has an equivalent delete-goals function, so the context is sufficient.

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