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

The description adds the permanence of the deletion and the detail that attachments remain in storage, which goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It clarifies the irreversible nature and a specific side effect, providing useful behavioral context that the annotation alone does not convey.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and permanence, with no filler or redundant information. It is concise and to the point.

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 simple two-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: permanence and attachment handling. The agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly, and the idempotentHint annotation covers idempotency without needing description space.

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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters, including source hints and format details. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, so it remains at the baseline for high schema coverage. No extra value is contributed.

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 states the verb 'deletes' and the resource 'submission', and adds the critical qualifier 'permanently' which distinguishes it from reversible operations like restore_submission. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies use when permanent deletion is intended and warns that it cannot be undone, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like restore_submission or mark_submission_spam, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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