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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the dry-run confirmation flow, account-scoping where foreign ids are silently skipped, that 'deleted' counts only your rows, and that the action is irreversible. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Front-loads the destructive nature and then the mode-dependent behavior in short, scannable paragraphs. The trailing Args block duplicates the schema descriptions, adding minor redundancy, but overall it is tight and well 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described; the description covers everything else an agent needs — irreversibility, the confirmed gate, and account-scoped id behavior. Nothing material is missing for a destructive 2-parameter tool.

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 both parameters are already documented, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that entity_ids outside your account are silently skipped and how that affects the deleted count. The Args section otherwise restates the schema.

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 and resource ('Permanently delete collected data records') with examples (leads, feedback), so the agent knows exactly what is affected. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the generic gnosari_delete sibling, leaving some routing ambiguity.

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 two operating modes: confirmed=False returns a confirmation summary with no deletion, confirmed=True performs the deletion. This tells the agent when to dry-run vs commit, though it never names an alternative tool for the read/list case (e.g. gnosari_collected_data).

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