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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it explains what is actually lost (team lists, search results), that no trash or archive view exists for restoration, and even constrains what the agent may tell the user afterwards. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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, each earning its place: what it does, what is lost and why it is irreversible, and the confirmation obligation. The consequence is front-loaded before the caution.

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 three-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, irreversibility, and user-communication obligations. It does not mention failure modes such as an unknown jamId or missing permissions, which is a minor gap given the otherwise thorough disclosure.

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%, with jamId, intent, and llm_model all documented inline, including the UUID-or-jam.dev-URL format. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Delete a Jam") and immediately describes the observable effect: it disappears from the team's lists and search results. The resource is unambiguous against siblings like deleteFolder, deleteComment, and updateJam, so an agent can select it without opening a 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 a clear precondition for invocation — confirm with the user before calling — and a post-call communication rule. It does not name an alternative (e.g., updateJam if the user only wants to change something) or state when deletion is inappropriate, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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