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

Even though annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, the description goes beyond that by disclosing the cascade deletion of concepts and the unusual side effect that ads retain a dangling-but-queryable stamp. It also explains Space scoping behavior and the override mechanism, which annotations do not cover.

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 sentences pack in the core action, destructive consequences, side effects, and space-scoping rule without any fluff. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence carries meaningful guidance.

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 delete tool with no output schema, this description covers all critical context: what is deleted, what is affected, what persists, and how to target the right Space. An agent has enough information to safely invoke the tool and understand its consequences.

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 covers space_id well with its own description, and the tool description reinforces the Space-scoping semantics. However, angle_id is undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the parameter name alone. This is acceptable but leaves a small gap.

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 action and resource: 'Delete an angle.' It also distinguishes itself from related angle tools by noting the cascade behavior ('concepts are deleted with it') and with a specific verb, so an agent can tell it apart from create_angle, update_angle, and get_angle.

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 gives explicit context for the Space scoping, telling the agent to see set_active_space to switch spaces or pass space_id to override for this call. It does not discuss when not to use the tool, but for a destructive delete this guidance is less critical.

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