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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add context; it does so by clarifying this is a hard, unrecoverable delete and by scoping it to unsown/queued entries. It adds no further operational detail (no permissions, no cascade behavior, no response shape), so 4 rather than 5.

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 tight clauses with zero waste: scope first, then the destructive/recoverability warning, then the alternative and the id source. Front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 two-parameter, non-idempotent-risk-free deletion tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and which has no output schema, the definition supplies everything needed: what it destroys, that it is irreversible, the fallback tool, and where to source the id.

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 both parameters (id, garden) are already documented, including the id's provenance. The description repeats the id source and says nothing about the optional garden parameter or its default beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3.

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 (remove outright) and resource (an entry from the succession plan / queued future planting not yet sown), and explicitly contrasts itself with delete_planting. An agent can distinguish it from every other delete_* sibling without opening a 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?

Names the alternative tool and the exact condition that selects it ('for a planting already sown/growing, use delete_planting instead'), and tells the agent where the id comes from (list_planned_plantings). No inference required.

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