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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable detail: it specifies 'soft-delete' (implying recoverability), the 409 CONFLICT error when in-flight, and the need to cancel first. These go beyond the annotations and help the agent predict behavior. Could be a 5, but it doesn't describe success return or error payloads, so a 4 is appropriate.

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, with the core action front-loaded, followed by key behaviors (idempotent, conflict case, API key). No wasted words; every clause 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 delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: soft-delete, idempotency, conflict handling, and authentication. It does not state the expected success response (e.g., 200, 204), but this is a minor gap given the tool is a simple delete. Overall it provides enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the single parameter 'transcription_id' is already fully documented as 'The transcription ID to delete (UUID).' The description adds no further parameter-specific guidance (e.g., format, validation). Baseline 3 is correct because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('soft-delete') and resource ('Scriptivox transcription record'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like transcribe_cancel and transcribe_status. It also communicates the idempotent nature, which further clarifies its purpose.

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 tells the agent when not to use it: if the job is in-flight, cancel first via transcribe_cancel. It also mentions the API key requirement, which is a prerequisite for using the tool. No ambiguity remains about the intended use case.

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