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

The annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, which is minimal. The description carries the behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses permanent deletion, no undo, cascade deletion of all touching connections, and the need for explicit user confirmation. This goes well beyond the annotation.

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 concise yet information-dense, with the most critical facts front-loaded: permanent deletion, no undo, user confirmation requirement, then alternatives. Every sentence contributes either a safety constraint, a usage condition, or a sibling differentiation.

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 destructive one-parameter tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, why it is dangerous, when to use it instead of alternatives, and what the parameter represents. No output schema is present, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter object_id as 'The object to destroy (exact object_id).' The description does not add new parameter-level detail, but with 100% schema description coverage and one required parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Permanently delete one object'), a clear resource ('from the user's graph'), and the cascading scope ('along with every connection touching it'). It clearly distinguishes itself from delete_graph_object and disconnect_graph_objects by naming these siblings 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?

The description explicitly says to prefer delete_graph_object when reversibility matters, to use purge_graph_object only when the user has explicitly asked for data to be gone, and to use disconnect_graph_objects when removing only a single connection. It also instructs the agent to confirm with the user before calling, which is direct and actionable.

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