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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds important context: it specifies the exact blast radius ('the room and every entry'), the permanence ('immediately and permanently'), and the unusual auth behavior ('No token needed — the accountable operator can always erase'). This goes well beyond the annotations and fully discloses the destructive scope.

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, each carrying distinct information: access restriction, blast radius/permanence, and token/accountability. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name/title, and the most critical constraint ('Host only') is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description covers the essential decision factors: who may call it, what it destroys, and that the effect is permanent. It does not mention return values or failure behavior, but with no output schema and a straightforward delete action, this is a minor 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?

The schema has one required room_id with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only implies the parameter's meaning via 'Deletes the room' without explicitly explaining that room_id identifies the room to burn or where to obtain it. This is minimally sufficient for inference but does not provide a direct parameter definition.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Deletes the room and every entry immediately and permanently.' It also specifies the access restriction ('Host only') and differentiates this destructive tool from sibling room tools like room_leave or room_open by emphasizing total permanent destruction. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: it is for hosts who want to permanently erase an entire room. The 'Host only' constraint is an explicit who-can-use conditionaine. However, it does not name an alternative tool or explicitly state when not to use it, so it misses the highest bar for alternative routing.

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