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

Goes well past the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true): it discloses that deletion is soft with a 30-day window, that the alias remains held, that repeats return the same dates, and that a stale expectedWorkspaceRevision yields CONFLICT. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before a destructive write.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the 30-day trash semantics, then permissions, then the revision guard — no filler sentences. The telegraphic phrasing ('reads then answer DELETED with the dates') is slightly awkward, but every clause carries information.

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, permission-gated mutation it covers the lifecycle (trash, 30 days, alias held), authorization per artifact type, the conditional 'why' requirement, conflict behavior, and idempotent replay. With an output schema present, no further return-value detail is needed.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description nevertheless adds meaning by tying 'why' to the workspace-artifact case and by framing expectedWorkspaceRevision as an optional guard that refuses with CONFLICT on change. It adds conditional logic rather than just restating field strings.

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+resource and an unusual mechanism: it moves an artifact to the trash for 30 days rather than hard-deleting, and the alias stays held. That distinguishes it clearly from artifact_version_delete and trash_purge without naming them, though it never explicitly names a sibling alternative.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions — standalone artifacts require owner or platform admin, workspace artifacts require internal admin or editor plus a 'why' sentence — plus the optional optimistic-concurrency guard. Clear context for when the call will succeed, but no explicit 'use trash_restore instead if...' routing.

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