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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: it is a soft delete, cards are preserved and detached, roadmap slots are permanently removed because a slot is meaningless without an epic, and whiteboard elements are unlinked. This is exactly the side-effect disclosure needed for safe tool invocation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core operation and then organizes side effects in clean, separate clauses. The parenthetical explaining why roadmap slots are deleted adds rationale without bloat. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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, no-output-schema deletion tool, this description is complete: it states the deletion type, the target, and all significant consequences on related objects. Idempotency is already covered by annotations. An agent can accurately predict the outcome of calling this tool without further documentation.

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 the schema documents 'id' as the Epic uid. The description essentially repeats 'by its uid' without adding format, validation, or contextual detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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 opens with 'Soft-delete an epic by its uid', a specific verb-plus-resource statement that clearly identifies the operation. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like delete_card and delete_roadmap_slot by emphasizing that the epic is soft-deleted while related objects behave differently. This is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 does not explicitly name alternatives, but it gives clear contextual boundaries: cards are NOT deleted, so an agent wanting card deletion knows this tool will not do it; roadmap slots ARE permanently deleted, which matters when choosing between delete_epic and delete_roadmap_slot. Naming the alternative tools directly would make this a 5.

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