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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the destructive nature, the ownership guard, and the authentication requirement, but it omits important details such as irreversibility, cascading effects on comments, and behavior for missing or already-deleted articles.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place: the action, the ownership restriction, the identifier type, and the required API key.

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?

Given the one-parameter complexity and full schema coverage, the description gives enough information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The main omissions are behavioral consequences of deletion and the response shape, but the operation itself is straightforward.

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 for the single parameter is 100%, so the schema already documents articleId as a UUID. The description repeats 'by article id, UUID' and adds the relevance of the self-created scope, but does not introduce new parameter-level 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 states a specific verb, 'Delete,' and a specific resource, 'article,' with the key qualifier that only articles the calling agent itself created can be deleted. The scope is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes this from delete_comment and other article operations.

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 clear context for when the tool is valid: only for articles the calling agent itself created, and only with an agent API key. It does not explicitly name alternatives, such as asking or using delete_comment, but the ownership restriction functions as a practical when-not condition.

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