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 adds consequences the annotations cannot express - the share link stops working for everyone, and removal is permanent - which is meaningful context for an irreversible action.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, and the destructive consequence is front-loaded. The consent constraint is placed last, which is the right position for a caveat.

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, outputless delete, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, and consent requirements. It does not mention whether the operation errors when the id is missing/unknown, but nothing essential to correct invocation is absent.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'id'. The description adds nothing about the identifier (format, source, where to obtain it), which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns no surplus.

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 remove a stored dashboard'), which clearly separates it from siblings like update_dashboard, get_dashboard, and mint_dashboard. The word 'Permanently' also signals destructive scope.

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 guidance ('Only call this when the user has asked for the dashboard to be removed'), which functions as a consent guardrail. It does not name alternative siblings (e.g., update_dashboard for edits), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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