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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the soft-delete semantics, the 90-day restorable_until window, scope of disappearance across git/web/REST/MCP/CI/webhooks/search/pages, name reservation, CI cancellation, and stopped webhook deliveries. It also covers token scope ('admin'), audit event (repo.delete), and owner notification, which are exactly the kinds of side effects annotations cannot express. It stops short of timestamp/format detail for restorable_until, so it is not flawless, but it is substantively richer than the annotation bar requires.

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 critical fact (soft delete, restorable) is front-loaded in the first clause, and the remaining sentences each carry distinct operational information: effects, permissions, scope, audit, alternative tool, and return shape. It is a dense single block rather than scannable lines, and the embedded date '(2026-10-19)' is noise, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return shape ('{deleted: true, soft: true, id, restorable_until}'). Combined with the permission model, scope requirement, cascade behavior, and the named recovery and purge alternatives, an agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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% for both required parameters (repo, owner), so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The description does add one piece of interpretive value for 'owner' by spelling out that it must be the personal owner or an org owner, but that is a permission rule rather than added parameter syntax or format guidance.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Delete a repository') and immediately qualifies it as a SOFT delete, which is the single most important disambiguation an agent needs. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling tools that do something similar but different: merjax_purge_repo (permanent) and merjax_restore_repo (undo).

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?

Explicitly states when to use the alternative: 'To remove it for good before then, use merjax_purge_repo', and names the restore path with its time bound. It also states who is allowed to call it and who is refused (admin collaborators, org admins), which functions as a precondition/exclusion list rather than generic advice.

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