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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real context: the deletion is permanent, there is no undo, and a published entry's page goes offline and drops out of live listings immediately. It stops short of describing permission requirements or cascade effects on related content.

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 sentences, nothing wasted, and the permanence warning plus immediate side effects are front-loaded right after the action statement.

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?

With no output schema and full schema coverage, the description only needs to convey consequence and irreversibility, which it does well. It could be more complete by noting any required prior state or authorization, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (entryId, projectId) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already carries.

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?

'Delete a collection entry permanently' states a specific verb and resource, and 'collection entry' cleanly separates it from the sibling delete_page and delete_redirect tools without needing their schemas.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive verb, and the description usefully notes the immediate effect on live listings, but it never names the alternative (e.g., unpublish_entry) for taking a published entry offline without destroying it, which is the one routing decision an agent faces here.

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