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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, so the description's job is lighter. It adds context about the items being from kisses and often untrusted, but does not mention reversibility or permission requirements. This modest extra context earns a 3.

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 stating purpose, followed by a compact scope list. No wasted words; efficient and clear.

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 simple destructive operation, the annotation covers the destructive nature and the description covers scope options. However, it does not state whether the discard is permanent or if any confirmation is needed. Given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 description coverage is 100% and the description repeats the exact scope text from the schema. It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'discard items received from kisses' and specifies the valid scope values. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on kiss-related items, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like 'drop'.

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 a use case ('Good for clearing untrusted junk and quarantined notes you never want to open') but does not explicitly contrast with other discard tools or state when not to use it. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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