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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real context beyond them: irreversibility ("Cannot be undone"), a permission model ("no one else, including the operator, can purge your bags"), and endpoint behavior ("grithgate.com" accepts writes, "grithland.com is look-only"). The auth proof paths are partly parameter guidance, but the exclusion-of-operator and host-routing facts are genuinely extra.

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-loaded with the irreversible-delete fact and the locker-stays scope, then the alternative, then auth, then host routing. Dense but each clause carries a distinct fact; slightly long but nothing is pure 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, irreversibility, permissions, alternative tool, auth methods, and endpoint routing. It is nearly complete, though it does not address why zero parameters are marked required for an operation that deletes a named bag.

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; the description exceeds it by explaining the auth flow relationship among the parameters (Bearer header vs leave_token when headers cannot be set, or a controller-key proof using nonce/controller_signature/controller_public_key). It adds relational meaning rather than restating field descriptions.

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 ("Permanently deletes one bag of your own") plus a scoping detail ("the locker stays"), which cleanly distinguishes it from locker_read, locker_write, and locker_seal. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 a related-but-different goal to a sibling: "To keep the contents but protect them use locker_seal." That gives a clear condition for choosing the alternative, though it does not state outright when not to purge.

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