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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and at least states that this is a soft-delete and flags it as destructive. It does not disclose whether the action is reversible, what happens to related records, or whether special permissions are required.

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 two short sentences with no filler: the operation comes first, followed by a clear safety warning. Every word contributes, and the caps signal importance without adding length.

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 one-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description contains the core behavioral fact and a confirmation warning, which is nearly complete. The only notable omission is whether soft-deleted deals can be restored, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema exposes only a bare `id: string`, and the description supplies the essential link that the id identifies a deal. For a single required parameter this is sufficient, though the description does not say where the id should come from or validate its format.

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 states a precise operation, 'Soft-delete a deal,' naming both the verb and resource. The 'soft-' qualifier distinguishes it from a permanent delete and from sibling update/get/create tools, so an agent can select it correctly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of deals_update or another tool, and no statement about when a delete should be avoided. The 'DESTRUCTIVE — confirm first' warning implies caution but does not describe appropriate conditions or alternatives.

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