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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: deleting a goal leaves its account and money untouched because a goal holds no entries. It doesn't cover auth requirements or rate limits, but with annotations covering the safety profile this is sufficient.

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 first three sentences are front-loaded and relevant: purpose, consequence, and alternative. The final two sentences about minor units and date formats are irrelevant to a delete operation that takes only an id, wasting space and potentially confusing the agent.

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 simple destructive delete tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, consequence, and alternative. However, it omits the meaning of the only parameter and pads with unrelated conventions. An agent still has to infer that 'id' is the goal identifier, leaving a clear gap.

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 0% and the only parameter 'id' is never mentioned in the description. The sentences about integer amounts and date formats refer to fields this tool does not accept, so they add no meaning to the sole parameter. The agent must infer that 'id' identifies the goal.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a goal.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_goal or delete_transaction. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

It explicitly recommends the alternative: 'Prefer archived: true in update_goal to keep it.' This tells the agent when to use update_goal instead of delete_goal. The condition for choosing deletion (permanent removal) is clearly implied.

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