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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by disclosing that deletion is permanent, there is no recycle bin, and confirmation fields must never be filled by the agent on its own initiative. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs for 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 short, front-loaded sentences deliver the most critical information first: permanence, then authorization and human confirmation. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 destructive, single-resource tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: irreversibility, admin-only restriction, and the human-in-the-loop requirement. The schema already provides field-level details, so nothing critical 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 description coverage is 67%, and the confirm and confirmation_phrase parameters are already well described in the schema. The description mainly restates the human-confirmation policy rather than adding new parameter semantics; follow_up_id, while implied by the tool purpose, still lacks a schema description.

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 opens with 'PERMANENTLY delete a follow-up,' stating the exact verb and resource. The additional details about no recycle bin and irreversibility remove any ambiguity about the operation's nature, and it is clearly distinguishable from sibling delete tools like crm_delete_contact.

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 provides strong usage conditions: the tool is admin-only, requires explicit human confirmation, and is irreversible. It does not explicitly name a non-destructive alternative like crm_update_followup, but the conditions clearly communicate when deletion is and is not appropriate.

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