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

The description frames the operation as a 'Preview', which reads as a non-mutating, read-like call, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. An agent relying on the description would not expect a destructive operation, and the description offers no compensating disclosure (trash retention, reversibility, permission requirements).

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity for a destructive, likely multi-step operation borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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, non-idempotent tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves out the essentials: what the preview returns, whether a confirm_action call must follow, whether the trash move is recoverable, and what permissions are needed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does map the resourceType enum to readable labels (source, collection, map, project), but says nothing about resourceId beyond its UUID format, nor whether the id must belong to the caller.

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 names a verb (moving to trash) and enumerates the four resource kinds (source, collection, map, project) that match the resourceType enum, so the resource side is clear. However, 'Preview' directly conflicts with the tool name geobble_resource_delete, which leaves the agent unsure whether this call actually deletes or only simulates the deletion.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, no prerequisites (auth, ownership) are stated, and no alternatives are named. Crucially, sibling tools geobble_confirm_action and geobble_cancel_action suggest this is a two-phase preview/confirm flow, but the description never says whether a follow-up confirmation is required.

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