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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job by disclosing a non-obvious behavior: deletion is not blocked by the 180-day expiry. It could mention permanence or effects more explicitly, but the key edge case is well covered.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the important expiry nuance. There is minor redundancy between the heading 'Delete a guide' and the first sentence 'Deletes a specific guide,' but overall it is efficient.

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 simple one-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: the action, the resource, and the one significant behavioral edge case. Nothing essential is missing.

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 single 'id' parameter is already self-explanatory in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Deletes a specific guide') and identifies the resource (a guide), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'delete_guides' beyond the singular/plural distinction in the tool name itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides practical usage context: even expired guides can and should be deleted for account cleanup, while they can no longer be read. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it is clear context without full exclusionary guidance.

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