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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context: the deletion is reversible via restore_ask and requires the "account" scope. It does not describe what happens to a question's answer/transcript on removal, but the added auth and reversibility details make this above baseline.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by reversibility and permission. No filler; every clause adds information.

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 mutation with annotations and no output schema this is close to sufficient, but the unexplained job_id and the unstated effect on an associated answer leave a gap an agent will hit at call time.

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 0% and the single parameter job_id is never mentioned in the description. An agent gets no hint whether job_id is the question id, an answer job id, or where to obtain it (list_ask_history), which is a real ambiguity given the tool speaks of "questions" but the param is named job_id.

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 plus resource ("Remove a question from the Ask history") with the scope of the effect stated, and it names the inverse operation restore_ask, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening either 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?

It gives the undo path ("restore_ask puts it back") and the required permission ("account" scope), which is solid routing context. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, e.g. that deletion is permanent after some window or that list_ask_history should be used to find the id first.

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