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

Annotations already have 'destructiveHint: true', so destructiveness is clear. The description adds crucial behavioral context: the 'confirm' parameter must be 'DELETE', business permission checks, free business restriction, and mandatory warnings. No contradictions with 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 front-loads the main purpose and then provides detailed usage instructions. While not extremely concise, each sentence adds essential guidance. The structure is logical but could be slightly tightened.

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?

Given no output schema, the description doesn't cover return values, which is acceptable for a delete operation. It covers prerequisites, restrictions, and pre-checks comprehensively. The agent has enough context to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It specifies that 'confirm' must be set to 'DELETE', which adds meaning beyond the schema's type/required fields. However, it doesn't explain 'communityId' and 'messageId' beyond implying they identify the message. Partial compensation.

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 starts with 'Delete a draft or scheduled Magic Reach message,' which clearly states the verb (Delete) and resource (draft or scheduled message). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'delete_magic_reach_message_schedule' and others.

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 provides explicit guidance: requires 'confirm' set to 'DELETE', check business permissions, FREE businesses cannot use, call 'check_business_tool_access' before inputs, show grace-period warning and verified resubscribe link, and never proceed when blocked. It clearly says when not to use (FREE businesses) and what prerequisites are necessary.

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