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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly given, but the description adds real value beyond that: no soft-archive, the row is removed, rendered prompts survive while the board becomes unanchorable, and lab_get_location will 404. These cascade consequences are exactly what an agent needs and could not get from annotations alone.

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?

Four sentences, all load-bearing: the verb, the irreversibility, the cascade effect, and the routing/precondition. The destructive nature and no-undo warning are front-loaded where they matter most.

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-param destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, downstream effects, routing, and a user-confirmation precondition. Nothing material 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?

Only one required parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents loc_id and its provenance (lab_list_locations). The description actually references `location_id`, a slight naming mismatch with the schema's `loc_id`, so it adds no useful syntax guidance over the structured data. 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 ('DELETE a location board permanently') and distinguishes itself from the sibling lab_restyle_location, which also touches locations. An agent can pick this tool apart from its neighbors on the strength of the first sentence alone.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('Use lab_restyle_location if you only want the place to look different') and adds a procedural precondition ('Confirm with the user before calling this'). Both when-to-use and when-not are covered.

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