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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds important context about manager approval, approval modes, and avoiding re-asking. It stops short of disclosing irreversibility or cascade effects, but the added approval behavior is genuinely useful beyond annotations.

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 core action is front-loaded in one sentence, and the approval workflow is separated into a bracketed note. The note is somewhat cryptic ('the card is the yes'), but the overall structure is compact and ordered.

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 two-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description covers the essential action, identifier options, and approval workflow. It does not explain ambiguous snippet matches or return behavior, but these are minor given the schema coverage and sibling context.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description restates the idea_identifier flexibility (content snippet, ID, 'newest'/'latest') but adds little beyond what the schema already says.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Delete an idea from Ideas') and enumerates accepted identifier forms. It is unmistakably clear about the action, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like triage_idea or capture_idea.

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 write-tier approval note gives concrete guidance on when to call the tool ('on the first clear ask') and when not to re-ask. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is clear enough to act on.

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