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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses ownership scoping and that encrypted saves are also deletable, but never states that the deletion is permanent/irreversible or what happens when the ID is unknown or already deleted — significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the trigger, then the encrypted-save caveat. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single param is fully documented. But for a destructive tool with zero annotations, the description omits irreversibility and failure behavior, leaving the agent without the confirmation context it would need.

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% and the single parameter is documented as "ID returned by list_saved_calculations," so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about the ID format or provenance beyond it, which is the baseline case.

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 one saved calculation") plus a scoping constraint ("belonging to the authenticated API key's user"). The singular "one" implicitly separates it from list_saved_calculations and compare_saved_calculations, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Use when the user asks to delete or forget a saved scenario" gives a clear, concrete trigger condition. It lacks any when-not guidance or pointer to alternatives such as update_calculation for modification versus deletion.

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