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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: the deletion is permanent, requires user confirmation, and specifies how output renders in app-capable hosts, instructing the agent not to duplicate the panel. This exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The confirmation and output-panel instructions are focused and earn their place, though the third sentence is somewhat long. No obviously wasted text.

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?

Given a simple, single-parameter destructive tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: permanence, confirmation, and output handling. It omits error behavior and explicit routing to list_voices, but those are minor gaps.

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% for the single cloneId parameter, and the schema itself documents it as 'Clone id from list_voices.' The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ('cloned voices') with scope ('one of the user's'). It distinguishes from other delete tools such as delete_generation and delete_post by resource type. However, it does not explicitly route to or differentiate from siblings like list_voices or create_voice_clone.

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?

Provides a key prerequisite: 'Confirm with the user first.' However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using list_voices to find the cloneId) or when not to delete. Usage is implied by the tool name and purpose.

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