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

Annotations already declare destructive, idempotent, non-readOnly, so the safety profile is known; the description still adds the real precondition that id and claim code must match, and the auth-based exception. It does not say whether the deletion is recoverable or what happens to the story afterwards, which is the remaining behavioral 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 sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and its scope, followed by the authentication shortcut. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 tool with no output schema, it covers the match precondition and both invocation paths, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. It omits post-conditions such as irreversibility or effect on the published listing, a minor but real gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the claim code is not merely required but must *match* the submission, and the signed-in writer can omit it entirely. That conditional logic goes beyond the field-level text.

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 and resource ('Deletes a story submitted to Plot Speaks') and scopes it precisely to pending or published submissions. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like submit_story or submission_status without opening a 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 description implies when the tool applies (withdrawing one's own submission, with the signed-in shortcut on the account connector), but it never states when not to use it or which sibling to use instead for checking status before withdrawing. Usage context is inferable but not explicit.

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