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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it warns that the action cannot be undone, states that admin privileges are required, specifies the 403 error for non-admin users, and advises confirming with the user before calling. This goes well beyond the destructiveHint and provides actionable behavioral guidance.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the critical warning, but it becomes repetitive: the 'When to use' section repeats the exact same text as the opening sentence. The 'Notes' section adds a confirmation reminder, but the duplication makes it less concise than it could be.

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 simple one-parameter delete tool with good annotations, the description is mostly complete: it covers prerequisites (admin), consequences (irreversible), and user interaction (confirm before calling). It does not describe edge cases like what happens if the todo token doesn't exist, but that is not critical for a delete operation.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter (todo_token) with the same UUID format detail, so schema coverage is 100%. The description repeats the parameter info without adding new meaning, earning the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and a clear resource ('To-Do item'), making the action unambiguous. It immediately distinguishes this from other delete tools like delete_calendar_event or delete_note by naming the exact resource.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: to permanently delete a To-Do item. It adds important usage constraints—admin privileges required and non-admin users getting a 403. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., update_todo), but the context is clear that this is for irreversible deletion.

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