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

Annotations declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds substantive behavior: deletion is a 30-day soft delete into the trash (recoverable), it cascades to all contained items, and it requires workspace or platform admin privileges. The 'repeating it returns the same dates' note operationalizes the idempotency hint in a way the annotation alone does not.

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 sentences, zero filler. The destructive scope and retention window come first, followed by the authorization gate and idempotency note. Every clause carries distinct 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 two-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, this covers the essentials: what gets destroyed, how long it is recoverable, who may call it, and what repeated calls do. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it 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 coverage is 100%, so workspaceId and the 'why' field are fully documented in-schema, including the 300-character limit and intent requirement. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond that; the only hint is 'returns the same dates,' which loosely gestures at the return payload.

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 with scope: 'Move the workspace and everything in it to the trash for 30 days.' The soft-delete framing plus the cascade ('everything in it') clearly separates it from workspace_update or a permanent purge. It doesn't name a sibling tool explicitly, which is the only thing keeping it off a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb (call this to delete a workspace), and the admin-only constraint tells the agent who can invoke it. But it never states when to prefer this over trash_purge, trash_restore, or workspace_update, nor what the lifecycle after deletion looks like. Adequate context, no routing guidance.

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