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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by enumerating exactly what is destroyed (public link, collected data, configuration) and asserting irreversibility ('This cannot be undone'), which is precisely the extra context 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the effect, then the confirmation contract, then the consequence. No filler and no repetition of the tool title.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation's scope, reversibility, and confirmation gating. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains both parameters including the default and meaning of confirmed. The description restates the confirmation semantics rather than adding syntax or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Delete an agent') and immediately qualifies the scope ('and all its associated data'), which cleanly separates it from gnosari_update, gnosari_create, and gnosari_collected_data_delete.

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?

Describes the two-step confirmation flow clearly: default confirmed=False returns details and a warning, confirmed=True performs the deletion. It doesn't name alternative siblings or state when deletion is inappropriate, but the dry-run guidance is strong enough that an agent knows how to sequence calls.

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