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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that all contents are destroyed, but says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or what happens to running sessions or installed apps, which is the critical risk context for a destructive 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive scope stated first and the usage condition second. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and trigger but leaves out irreversibility, permission requirements, and the return behavior of the delete call, all of which an agent needs before invoking it.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Phone id, ph_…"), so the schema already documents it. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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 ("Delete") and resource ("a phone"), plus the scope of destruction ("everything on it"). It is distinguishable from siblings like park_phone or create_phone, though it never explicitly contrasts with park_phone, which is the natural non-destructive alternative.

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?

"Do this when done with a disposable phone" gives a when-to-use condition, but it is implied rather than explicit about how to identify a disposable phone, and it offers no when-not guidance or named alternative such as park_phone for retaining a device.

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