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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains that deletion is initially a move to trash, that sixteenbridges_restore_bubble can undo it for 7 days, and that after that it is permanently deleted. The instruction to ask the user first adds important safety context for a destructive operation.

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, front-loaded with the action, followed by recovery behavior and the safety instruction. No sentence is wasted.

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 tool with annotations covering safety and a fully described id schema, the description supplies the essential behavioral and recovery context. No output schema exists, and the return value is not necessary for correct invocation.

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 single id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its pattern and the sibling tool to use for obtaining it. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.

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 action and resource: moving a Sixteen Bridges bubble to the trash. It also distinguishes this from permanent deletion by naming the restore path and the 7-day window.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to ask the user first and names sixteenbridges_restore_bubble as the recovery alternative, including the 7-day restore window. This is clear when/when-not guidance for a destructive tool.

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