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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing cascade behavior that annotations cannot express — sub-goals survive as top-level goals and linked fix-queue issues are unlinked rather than deleted. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious side-effect an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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-loads the core action and cascade semantics in the first sentence, then the usage rationale. The final clause is somewhat wordy ('there is no separate archive state, this is the only cleanup path') but each sentence carries distinct, useful 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 delete with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, confirmation of permanence, cascade effects, and the alternative cleanup context. No meaningful gap remains.

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%, with both goal_id and site_id documented ('Goal id from list_goals', 'The brand/site ID'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 and resource ('Permanently delete a goal') and immediately clarifies scope with the 'Permanently' qualifier, distinguishing it from update_goal and list_goals. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs without consulting siblings.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('to clean up a duplicate or superseded goal') and contrasts with the alternative ('instead of leaving it around marked do not use'), plus notes there is no archive state and this is the only cleanup path. Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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