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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description goes beyond that by adding nuances: the entry cannot be restored, errors if already gone, the inbound request remains answerable through get_request for a retention window, and requires edit access. These behaviors are not inferable from annotations alone and provide critical operational context.

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 compact but information-dense. It front-loads the core action, explains the side effect, provides the alternative, and notes error and permission conditions—all in two sentences without redundancy. Every clause adds value.

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 single-parameter operation, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what it does not do, consequences on related data, error scenarios, permissions, and the alternative tool. No output schema exists, but the description adequately sets expectations for the side effects, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with the single 'id' parameter described as 'Dead-letter entry id from list_dlq.' The description adds no additional parameter-specific information, but since the schema already fully documents the 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'), a specific resource ('DLQ entry'), and defines the behavior clearly: 'the delivery is never re-sent and the entry cannot be restored.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from its sibling retry_dlq_entry, making it unambiguous which operation is meant.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use retry_dlq_entry instead when the delivery should still reach its target.' It also states error conditions (entry already gone) and permission requirement (edit access), which clarifies when to use and when not to.

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