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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes well beyond that: it states the action is irreversible, that it always requires a human approval link before proceeding, and that the receipt arrives in an untrusted envelope echoing the external id from identify(). That is substantial operational context, especially the approval-gate and untrusted-input warning.

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 scope statement and the destructive/approval caveat are front-loaded, and every sentence carries an operational fact. It is dense with jargon ('untrusted envelope', 'identify() call') that is meaningful but slightly compression-heavy for a two-parameter tool.

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 not be described, yet the description still explains the key response artifact (the approval link and the identity-echoing receipt). Combined with the destructive and irreversible warnings, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and safely.

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 50%: 'respondent' is documented as profile id or external id, while alsoResponses has no schema description. The description compensates by spelling out that alsoResponses=true additionally deletes responses and files, which is the exact semantic the schema omits. It adds real value above the structured fields.

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 respondent's profile/drafts, scrub identity from responses) and scopes it clearly against the closest siblings, fillo_delete_response and fillo_disable_identity. An agent can distinguish this GDPR-erasure tool from the plain response-deletion tool without opening either 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?

Names the governing use case (GDPR erasure) and the condition that expands scope (alsoResponses=true deletes responses and files too), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as fillo_delete_response for non-GDPR deletion, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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