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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is structured data. The description still adds real value: it warns that deletion is permanent and cascades to revision history, and that an archive step is a precondition. It does not describe failure behavior or confirm irreversibility semantics beyond 'permanently'.

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 the destructive action and scope front-loaded and the precondition second. No filler, nothing repeated from the title 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 destructive one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers permanence, cascade scope, and the archive precondition, with annotations carrying the rest. Minor gaps (error cases, whether deletion can be undone) remain but nothing essential to calling it correctly 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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the identifier format or what happens with an unknown id, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (delete) plus resource (instruction document) and an explicit scope: only archived instructions, and the revision history goes with it. This distinguishes it cleanly from archive_instruction and unarchive_instruction without opening any 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?

The prerequisite 'Active instructions must be archived first' gives a concrete condition for when this call is legal, implying archive_instruction as the preceding step. It stops short of naming the alternative tool explicitly or stating when not to use deletion at all.

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