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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing soft-delete semantics: content/assets/database content are retained, MCP cannot permanently delete, write access is required, and repeated deletion succeeds. This meaningfully expands on the structured hints without contradicting them.

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 purpose alerting the agent to required user intent, then proceeds through prerequisites, behavior, and return shape. Every sentence adds operational value; there is no filler or repetition of the name/title.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and one required parameter, the description supplies the essential invocation context: explicit request requirement, unpublish workflow, publish-in-progress handling, soft-delete behavior, idempotence, and return shape. An agent has enough information to call this tool safely and correctly.

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 single parameter sessionId is already fully described in the JSON schema as the session ID of the artifact to delete. The description restates this mapping ('Set sessionId to the ID of the artifact to delete') but does not add meaningful new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an EXISTING artifact.' It then distinguishes this tool from deletion inferred by cleanup requests and sets an explicit boundary ('Use this tool only when the user explicitly asks to delete that artifact'). This clearly separates it from siblings like artifact-unpublish.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and practical sequencing: verify explicit user intent, do not infer deletion from cleanup, unpublish before deleting, wait for in-progress publishes, and note that authorized repeated deletions succeed. This is strong operational guidance.

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