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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds important behavior beyond the annotations: deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, and deletion is refused for items still used by posts. It does not discuss permissions or idempotency on repeated deletes, but the added consequences and refusal condition are substantial.

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?

The description is three short sentences, front-loads the permanent-deletion scope, then covers the buyer-question exception and refusal behavior. There is no filler or repetition.

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 an output schema, rich annotations, and 100% schema description coverage, the description contains everything an agent needs: what is deleted, what is forbidden, what is refused, irreversibility, and the relevant sibling alternative. No critical invocation detail 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 description coverage is 100%, so id and kind are already documented in the schema, including the enum and the note that buyer questions cannot be deleted. The description repeats the affected kinds but adds no parameter syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description states a specific destructive verb and resource ('Permanently deletes a persona, pillar, angle, market or KPI target'), enumerates the affected entity kinds, and distinguishes the tool from save_strategy_item for buyer questions. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and what it does not handle.

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?

It explicitly routes buyer questions to save_strategy_item with active:false, states that items still used by posts are refused, and names the related save_strategy_item alternative. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance rather than leaving the agent to infer it.

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