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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses the effect on related records (references have platformId cleared, deals preserved), the hard-vs-soft delete distinction for force, and the requirement to confirm with the user. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before mutating user data.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and side effects; the confirmation warning comes last as an operative caveat. 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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this covers side effects, the force decision, and user confirmation. It stops short of stating whether a hard delete is irreversible or what permissions are required, which would fully close the 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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of force (hard delete vs default soft delete) and the preservation of referencing deals.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete a venture platform') and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_venture_deal and delete_venture_event. An agent knows exactly what this targets.

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 confirmation instruction ('Confirm with the user before calling') and implies the force flag's decision point, but never states when to choose this over archive-style alternatives or when to prefer soft vs hard delete beyond the parameter's own semantics.

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