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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the side effect that a ticked plan item remains ticked after deletion. It does not say whether deletion is permanent or recoverable, which is left to the destructive hint.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the operational detail and the side-effect caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter destructive delete with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the essential operational facts: what to delete, where the ID comes from, and what side effect does not occur. Only minor gaps remain, such as permanence of the deletion and behavior on an unknown move_id.

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 move_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema carries no meaning. The description partially compensates by stating the value comes from list_moves, giving provenance but not format, type constraints, or error behavior for invalid IDs.

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 ("Delete a move") and narrows scope with "recorded by mistake." The clause "A plan item it ticked stays ticked" implicitly distinguishes it from delete_plan_item, though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

Gives a clear usage context (correcting an accidentally logged move) and tells the agent where to obtain the required ID via list_moves. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming delete_plan_item as the alternative for a different removal need.

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