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 covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that the revision history is deleted along with the document and that only archived items are eligible — a cascading/permanent effect the annotations alone do not convey.

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, zero filler, with the destructive nature and the precondition front-loaded in that order. 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 destructive tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is destroyed, the cascading effect, and the required prior state. Nothing material 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?

Single 'id' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the semantics and baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the id format or how to obtain it beyond what the schema 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 ('Permanently delete') and resource ('an archived instruction document'), and scopes it to the archived state so an agent can distinguish it from archive_instruction/unarchive_instruction and from non-destructive delete siblings. No ambiguity about what the tool acts on.

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 an explicit precondition: 'Active instructions must be archived first,' which effectively routes the agent to the archive step before deletion. It stops short of naming the sibling tool or stating post-deletion state, but the when/when-not is clear.

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