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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the operation is 'Permanently' irreversible and gated on a specific idea state. It does not address whether repeat calls on a deleted id error (relevant given idempotentHint=false), a minor gap.

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 tight sentences with zero waste, and the destructive scope constraint plus precondition are front-loaded where an agent will read them.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility and the state precondition, which is what an agent needs to call it safely. It stops short of noting error behavior for repeat/locked calls, keeping it just shy of complete.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or example details about the id beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('delete') and resource ('idea') with an explicit scope constraint ('archived or declined'). This differentiates it reasonably from archive_idea and decline_idea, though it never names those siblings as alternatives.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context ('archived or declined idea') and an explicit prerequisite for the active case ('Active ideas must be archived or declined first'), which implicitly points to the archive/decline siblings. No explicit when-not beyond the state precondition, but the routing guidance is solid.

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