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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds materially: irreversibility ('cannot be recovered afterwards — not by us either'), hard vs. flagged deletion, no-account authorization, and the elevated delete_token requirement. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: permanence first, then the no-flag clarification, then the policy rationale, then the token requirement. The critical, irreversible consequence is front-loaded.

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 two-param destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete: it explains irreversibility, authorization, and the read/delete capability split. The one gap is what a successful call returns or how failure surfaces (bad/expired token, already-deleted case), which is not covered by annotations or an output schema.

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 50% — case_id is undocumented in the schema, and the description supplies its meaning implicitly by anchoring both parameters to a case. For delete_token it reinforces why the token exists (separate capability from reads), which goes beyond the schema's syntax-level note, though it does not clarify token expiry or single-use behavior.

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 everything held about a case') plus the scope of the deletion ('immediately and permanently'). It also draws the boundary against the sibling read path ('reading a case and destroying it are deliberately different capabilities'), so an agent can distinguish it from get_case/unlock_case without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear conditions for use (the privacy-policy deletion, no account required) and rules out a soft-delete interpretation ('removed, not flagged'). It does not name or compare against the other case-mutating siblings such as export_case or unlock_case, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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