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

Annotations provide little (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the explanatory burden. It clearly explains that Moxie only validates and returns the path, does not delete files or open a PR, and that the actual deletion occurs in the user's branch. This is valuable, non-obvious behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful information: what the tool does, the division of responsibility between Moxie and the user, and the return value. No wasted words or repetition.

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?

The description tells the agent the output (resolved path), the workflow (delete in your branch), and the parameter choice (slug or targetPath). It does not describe error behavior or edge cases like invalid paths or multi-repository handling, but the schema already documents the repository caveat. For a moderate-complexity tool with no output schema, this is sufficient, though not exhaustive.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds important semantic guidance: 'Provide either slug or targetPath', clarifying that these are alternative ways to identify the doc, which is not encoded as an official oneOf constraint in the schema. This goes beyond the schema's existing field descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Propose deleting') and a clear resource ('Moxie-tracked documentation file'), and immediately clarifies that Moxie itself does not delete files or open a PR. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like propose_doc_update, list_docs, and get_doc_impact, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when a change makes an existing doc irrelevant, and the deletion should land in the same PR. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'same PR' and 'your current change' guidance provides enough usage context.

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