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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds substantial context beyond that — the deliberate preview-unless-confirm:true two-step, and non-obvious cascade boundaries (deleting a segment does not delete contacts, deleting a template does not recall sent mail, deleting a workflow strands mid-run contacts). The remaining gap is that it never states whether deletion is reversible or what recovery exists, which matters for a permanent-destroy tool.

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?

Front-loads the destructive action and the confirm gate in the first sentence, then handles alternatives and cascade caveats. Some of the meta-commentary about deliberately mirroring siblings and making the agent 'say twice' is self-referential padding that could be trimmed without losing information.

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 destructive single-target delete with an output schema present, the description covers what the agent needs: the confirm gate, the sibling alternative, and the cascade side-effects per resource type. Return values are covered by the output schema, so nothing material 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning about `confirm` beyond the field text by framing it as an intentional double-confirmation contract rather than a mere flag. The `resource`/`id` prefix-match rule is already fully covered by the schema, so no extra credit there.

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 and resource with explicit scope ('Permanently delete ONE resource by id'), so the agent knows exactly what it does and that it is single-target rather than bulk. It also names the sibling it pairs with (volanea_list_resources) and the sibling it should not be confused with (volanea_cleanup_test_data).

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 routes the agent: use volanea_cleanup_test_data when tidying up server-created artifacts, use this tool when the target may include human-built resources. The condition that selects the alternative is stated, not implied, and the confirm-gate requirement is spelled out.

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