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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds extensive behavioral detail: cascading bank deletion, tag cleanup semantics, interdependency rejection, draft vs live riddle behavior, publish purging, and discard_changes restoration. This goes well beyond what the structured annotations provide and aligns with the destructive hint.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is one long, dense run-on sentence that is harder to parse than necessary. Every piece of information is relevant, and no fluff exists, but the structure could be broken into clearer steps or bullets.

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?

Given the destructive nature, the complex edge cases around riddle interdependency and published vs draft items, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent what will happen, when it will be rejected, and how items can be restored, leaving little ambiguity.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic meaning by explicitly tying target values to which parameter is required/rejected and by describing the real-world consequences of passing each target.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Deletes') and resource ('question bank or ONE of its items'), and explicitly differentiates the two deletion targets. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting that 'nothing else deletes either' and by referencing related question-bank tools.

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 explicitly states when to use target 'bank' vs target 'item', warns about interdependency risks, and references a documentation resource before deleting a bank. It also links to the publish and discard_changes siblings for the lifecycle behavior of item deletion.

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