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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds information they cannot convey: the deletion is reversible for exactly 7 days, becomes permanent afterward, and requires user confirmation before the call. That lifecycle and consent detail is exactly the context a destructive operation needs.

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, each carrying distinct information: what happens, how it can be undone and when it becomes irreversible, and the consent requirement. The most important fact (it goes to trash, not gone) is front-loaded.

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?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description fills the remaining gaps: reversibility window, permanence, and confirmation. Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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 id parameter is documented in the schema as coming from list_bubbles, including its pattern. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is fine given the schema does the work, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Move a bubble to the trash') rather than the vague 'delete' implied by the name, which immediately clarifies that this is a soft delete. It also names the inverse sibling restore_bubble, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

'Ask the user first' is an explicit behavioral prerequisite for invoking the tool, and naming restore_bubble as the recovery path tells the agent when this tool is and isn't the right choice. It stops short of a full when-not clause (e.g. when to use update_bubble instead), so it lands just below the top.

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