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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it discloses the observable outcome (existing share link stops resolving with a 404), the two-phase propose->confirm protocol, the status/action_id/plan_token handshake, and the return shape { record_id, is_public }. That is exactly the extra context an agent needs before invoking a destructive mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the effect and the ID requirement, then the confirmation protocol, all in a few dense sentences. The capitalized CONFIRMATION block restates the propose->confirm idea already introduced, which is slight duplication but serves emphasis for a destructive tool.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers impact, safety flow, and return values. The only real gap is the accepted type/format of wishlist_id, which is undocumented everywhere.

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 schema alone gives no meaning for wishlist_id — the description at least tells the agent to pass it. However it adds no format detail (the schema allows integer or string), nor any explanation of what the ID refers to or where to obtain it.

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 ('Take one of the caller's wishlists back private') and immediately names the concrete effect — the public share link 404s. This clearly separates it from share_wishlist without needing the sibling's schema.

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?

Explains the operating context well: this is a proposal-only tool that requires a follow-up confirm_action, so an agent knows it cannot complete the action in one call. It lacks an explicit statement of when to prefer this over other wishlist tools or any preconditions, but the workflow guidance is clear.

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