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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) by disclosing that this writes to the chain, produces an unsigned transaction, requires external signing and submission, is irreversible, and uses a confirm_token two-step protocol. This is rich behavioral context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 destructive action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the write/sign workflow and the irreversibility warning. Three tight sentences with no filler.

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, chain-writing tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the transaction lifecycle, the required signer/submit tooling, and the irreversible confirmation protocol. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context for confirm_token by describing the two-call confirmation flow ('the first call returns a confirm_token; call again with it to proceed'), which the terse schema description alone does not fully convey.

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 (all private messages you sent to an account), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like geode_messaging_delete_single_message_to_account and geode_messaging_delete_all_messages_to_group.

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?

Clearly explains the operational workflow: it prepares an unsigned intent for `signer`, nothing happens until signed with geode-local-signer and submitted via geode_submit_intent. It implies the two-step confirmation but doesn't explicitly contrast when to choose this over the single-message or group deletion variants.

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