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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it emphasizes permanence ('no trash'), what gets destroyed (assignee links), and what is preserved (the epic). It also notes the workspace requirement. These details are not inferable from annotations alone.

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 compact and front-loaded with the critical warning ('PERMANENTLY delete'). Every sentence adds value: scope, irreversibility, alternative suggestion, and prerequisite. No redundancy or fluff.

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 delete operation, the description is complete. It covers the action, scope, side effects, prerequisites, and alternative. No output schema exists, but none is needed for a deletion that returns no meaningful body. The annotations already cover the destructive nature, and the description fills all other gaps.

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?

The only parameter (id) is fully described in the schema as 'The roadmap slot uid (from list_roadmap_slots)', which is 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline for schema-documented parameters.

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 clearly states the action: 'PERMANENTLY delete a roadmap slot (and its assignee links).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_roadmap_slot and delete_epic by noting the epic is not touched and that rescheduling should use the update tool.

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?

Explicitly provides when-not-to-use guidance: 'to reschedule, prefer update_roadmap_slot' and clarifies scope with 'The epic itself is not touched.' It also states a prerequisite (Pro or trial workspace). This leaves no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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