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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it is a deletion. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the blast radius (community copy is also removed when published) and the "Free:" cost signal, though irreversibility and any permission requirements go unstated.

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 sentences, scoping detail front-loaded, no filler.

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?

With rich annotations, an output schema, and a single fully documented parameter, the description covers enough to make the call decision correctly. Only the non-reversibility/permission angle is absent.

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% and the schema already explains the fm_… id format and points to list_feature_memory as the source. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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 (delete) and resource (a captured feature) with explicit scope: private library, plus community if published. That scope note is what separates it from siblings like unpublish_feature_pattern, though the sibling isn't named directly.

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?

"Use to remove mistaken captures or probe data" gives a use case, which is more than nothing, but there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative for removing a published pattern without deleting the capture.

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