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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds value beyond that: 'Its history stays' clarifies the destruction is scoped, admins-only states the auth requirement, and the quotedMaterial injection warning discloses an unusual prompt-injection attack surface. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the trigger condition comes first and the safety instructions last. Slightly choppy, but each sentence carries actionable content.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the key gaps: admin authorization, required user confirmation, and the fact that history is retained. It does not point at a recovery path (e.g. parse_restore_task) for an undo, which would fully close the loop for a destructive tool.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema (needId's provenance in parse_tracking's customNeeds, brandSlug's fallback behavior), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond the schema.

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 (removed) and resource (a topic the user added to Custom topics), which clearly distinguishes it from its inverse sibling parse_add_question. It stops short of naming that sibling, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 the triggering situation ('when the user wants a topic they added ... removed'), a hard prerequisite ('Workspace admins only'), and a gating condition ('Call only after the user confirms'). An agent knows both when and when-not to invoke it.

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