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

Although annotations already mark this destructive and irreversible, the description adds substantial context: the deletion spans ShearQuery, storage, and the provider; already-made videos remain in the Studio; the action cannot be undone; and recreating costs the set-up price again. This goes well beyond the structured hints and gives the agent the behavioral consequences it needs.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then efficiently adds scope, side effects, irreversibility, cost, and confirmation guidance. Every clause earns its place without repetition or filler.

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 destructive, no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is deleted, what is preserved, reversibility, cost implications, and required user confirmation. Together with the annotations, it gives the agent everything needed to decide whether and how to call the 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax and correctly focuses on the action's scope instead.

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 specific verb and resource: permanently delete the signed-in member's own AI avatar and voice. It also names the affected systems (ShearQuery, storage, provider), making the scope unmistakable and distinguishable from any sibling management or creation tool.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: only when the member has clearly asked for it, and it adds a confirmation requirement before proceeding. No alternative tools are named, but no sibling tool performs this same deletion, so the guidance is strong without needing explicit alternatives.

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