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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the core risk is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the title-confirmation safeguard and the authorization rule tied to edit permissions. It still doesn't say whether deletion is recoverable or what happens to any references/in-flight usages.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the guard rail. The emoji-and-caps header is decorative noise but costs little.

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 simple destructive delete with full schema descriptions and an output-less response, the definition covers the essentials: what is deleted, the confirmation requirement, and the permission rule. Only recoverability and side effects on dependent objects are missing.

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% and each parameter (id, confirm_title, target_user_id) is already documented in the schema. The description adds the rationale for confirm_title ('evita apagar a errada') but nothing about target_user_id's admin-only restriction. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 ('Apaga') and resource ('mensagem rápida'), making the delete-vs-update distinction against siblings like update_quick_reply and list_quick_replies obvious. The category tag ('MENSAGENS RÁPIDAS') adds grouping but not much else; no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Provides a concrete precondition (confirm_title must equal the current title, to avoid deleting the wrong record) and a permission note ('Mesma regra de quem pode alterar'). However it never says when to prefer this over update_quick_reply or how to recover from a failed confirmation, so usage remains implied rather than explicit.

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