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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing specific side effects: it deletes associated records and that public shares are updated immediately. It also hints at the need for confirmation, which aligns with the confirmation_token parameter. No contradiction with destructiveHint or idempotentHint.

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, focused sentence that conveys the primary action and key constraints without verbosity. It is well-structured and easy to parse, with no redundant phrasing.

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 tool's destructive nature and its concurrency/idempotency requirements, the description covers the critical aspects: what is deleted, the need for confirmation, the version check, and the immediate effect on public shares. It does not explain idempotency_key, but that is a standard requirement and not necessary for basic understanding. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use 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 description provides indirect context for parameters: 'current cap-table version' hints at expected_version, and 'exact confirmation' hints at confirmation_token. However, it does not explicitly map these terms to the schema parameters, and the schema itself has no descriptions. It adds some meaning but not comprehensive 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 (delete), the resource (a selected planning stakeholder), and includes contextual details (associated records, current cap-table version). It is unambiguous and distinguishes this from other cap_table operations by explicitly mentioning 'stakeholder' and 'associated records'.

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 implies the use case (deleting a stakeholder) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like cap_table.update_stakeholder or cap_table.delete. It mentions preconditions like 'after exact confirmation' and 'at the current cap-table version' but does not provide clear when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives.

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