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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds the crucial nuance that the deletion is permanent (no undo) and is gated on idea state. It still doesn't mention cascade effects on related records or permission requirements, so it falls short of fully supplementing the structured safety hints.

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, no filler, with the permanent-delete semantics and the state precondition front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers permanence and the state gate, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around post-deletion behavior and permissions, but an agent has enough to call it 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?

Only one parameter, fully described in the schema (100% coverage: 'Id of the Idea'). The description adds no format, sourcing, or validity constraints beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('delete') plus resource ('idea'), with the additional qualifier 'permanently' that separates it from archive_idea and decline_idea. It stops short of naming the siblings it supersedes, so an agent still has to infer the workflow relationship from the precondition alone.

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?

Explicitly states the eligibility gate ('archived or declined') and the prerequisite ('Active ideas must be archived or declined first'), which effectively routes the agent to archive_idea or decline_idea as a prior step. It does not name those alternatives or state what to do instead for an active idea beyond the ordering constraint.

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