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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral load and does so richly: hard delete with no undo, cascade deletion of all connections, and the extra side effect of removing stored files for file/image objects. It also flags the required user confirmation, which is exactly the kind of context annotations don't 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?

Four tight sentences, each earning its place: the destructive scope first, then the confirmation rule, then the preferred alternative, then the file side effect and the connection-only alternative. Dense but front-loaded and waste-free.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema destructive tool, the description covers scope, irreversibility, side effects, confirmation, and alternative routing. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call it.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents object_id. The description adds only the emphatic framing ('the object to destroy') and does not specify ID format or source, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (permanently delete) and resource (one object from the user's graph plus every touching connection), and explicitly separates itself from the reversible delete_graph_object and the connection-only disconnect_graph_objects. An agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (only after the user has said they want the data gone), when-not (prefer delete_graph_object which is reversible), a confirmation prerequisite, and a named alternative for the narrower case. Nothing 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.