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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden: it discloses irreversibility, the difference from soft-delete, immediate calendar feed invalidation, preserved patron balance and purchase history, the ability to re-onboard with the same npub, proof-of-npub requirement, and no cost. This is exceptionally transparent for a destructive tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and data inventory, and the longer explanations about irreversibility, patron status, auth, and pricing all earn their place. A bit of rhetorical flourish could be trimmed, but it does not obscure the operational contract.

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 operation with no annotations, the description supplies all essential context: destructive scope, side effects, exclusions, authentication requirements, cost, and post-delete behavior. An output schema exists for return values, so no material information is missing.

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?

The schema already documents npub and confirm with clear descriptions. The tool description adds semantic value by requiring proof of the npub and noting that the same npub can sign in again afterward. The dpop_token parameter remains undocumented in both the schema and description, leaving a small gap at 67% coverage.

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 opens with a precise destructive verb and resource: 'Delete every block you have here, and everything recorded on them.' It then enumerates the concrete data categories affected and explicitly contrasts itself with other removals that retain history, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It clearly establishes the intended scenario—a grower who asks to be forgotten and expects a true delete rather than a soft delete—and differentiates itself from 'every other removal in this service' that keeps history. It does not name sibling alternatives or provide an explicit when-not-to-use list, so it stops short of a 5.

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