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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description specifies exactly what is destroyed (the bag), what is preserved (the room), and a non-obvious side effect (occupancy does not move). It also adds the required Authorization header context. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the structured 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 description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence gives method, path, action, and auth. The remaining three sentences each add a key behavioral constraint with no filler or repetition.

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?

Together with the schema and output schema, the description covers the endpoint, authentication, destructive scope, and side effects. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance among the many locker-related sibling tools, but the provided constraints are enough for correct invocation in most cases.

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 80% and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for nonce, leave_token, controller_signature, and controller_public_key. The description reflects the bag and auth shape but does not add significant meaning for bag beyond the schema's string type, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb ('Delete'), the resource ('your own bag'), and the operation ('purge'). It also adds the scope-limiting detail 'No operator purge of someone else's bag,' which distinguishes this from any larger cleanup operation.

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 description makes the primary usage boundary explicit: it deletes only your own bag, and operators cannot purge someone else's bag. However, it does not name alternatives like locker_write or locker_seal or explain when a caller should pick those instead, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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