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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds real side-effect detail: files are retained, media links break, active tasks are rejected, credits are unaffected. That is exactly the non-obvious aftermath an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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 compact clauses, no filler, and the consequence (recycle bin, broken links) is front-loaded before the caveats. Every sentence 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 single-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical effects, the precondition, and the credit implication. It leaves unaddressed the response on failure (invalid or already-trashed score), which would matter for retry logic.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden and says nothing about what score_id refers to (score GUID vs. version vs. numeric id). The name is self-evident enough to keep this at minimum viable, but no format or lookup guidance is added.

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 ('Move') and resource ('a finished score') plus the destination ('recycle bin'). The 'finished' qualifier separates it from operations on active tasks, but it never names the sibling inverse (restore_score) or the difference from discard_score_preview.

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?

'Active tasks cannot be moved' gives a concrete exclusion, and 'recycle bin' implies the recoverable/undo path versus permanent deletion. No sibling tool is named as the alternative, so an agent must infer the restore route itself.

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