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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden: it discloses irreversibility ("Permanently"), the side effect on account shares, an explicit non-effect on accounts/balances, and the return shape {"success": true}. What it omits is whether the deletion requires ownership/admin rights or fails when shares still exist — minor but real gaps for an irreversible mutation.

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 destructive verb, then consequences, then the alternative. "Free its account shares" is slightly opaque phrasing, but every sentence earns its place and nothing is padding.

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 irreversible delete with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, side effects, alternative, and return value — enough to call it correctly. It stops short of error conditions or permission requirements, which is the only meaningful remaining gap.

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?

There is a single required goalId parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation nuance beyond that, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the work.

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 delete a savings goal") with the scope of the deletion spelled out. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling update_goal, which is named explicitly, so an agent can route 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 alternative ("Prefer update_goal with status archived to keep it") and the condition that selects it, which is exactly the fork an agent faces with a delete tool. It also bounds the blast radius up front by saying accounts and balances are not touched.

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