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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the exact lifecycle: immediate stop of execution, soft-delete of the prompt AND its historical responses, 30-day retention, then permanent removal. That is precisely the 'what gets destroyed and how recoverable it is' context an agent needs before an irreversible action.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the immediate effect, then the retention consequence. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and annotations already covering safety, the description supplies the missing behavioral layer (soft-delete window and permanent removal). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The numeric id of the prompt to delete'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Delete a prompt') and immediately scopes the effect: the prompt stops running, and both the prompt and its responses are removed. This cleanly separates it from the many delete-*-tool siblings and from update-prompt-tool or get-prompt-tool.

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 intent of the tool makes its usage implied and unambiguous, and the description clarifies the consequence of calling it, but it never states when to prefer deletion over alternatives (e.g., update-prompt-tool to pause/disable) or any prerequisites or exclusions.

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