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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying this is a soft-delete, implying reversibility or archival rather than permanent removal. It doesn't detail consequences for related resources, but the annotations lower the bar for this dimension.

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 useful content is a single, efficient sentence that states the action and condition. However, the first line 'Delete Source' merely repeats the title and adds no value, so it is not entirely waste-free.

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 tool with an output schema and annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description is nearly complete. It explains what soft-delete means and when to use it. The only minor gap is the absence of details about what happens to related data (e.g., reviews tied to the source), but this is not essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single 'id' parameter already documented as 'Unique numeric identifier for this review source.' The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('soft-delete') and resource ('review source'), and provides the purpose ('when it is no longer used for ingestion or display'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like createSource, updateSource, and listSources without needing to inspect their 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?

The description gives a clear condition for use: delete a source when it is no longer used for ingestion or display. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the condition is specific enough to guide an agent's decision. A small deduction for not mentioning when not to use it (e.g., if the source is still referenced).

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