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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses destructive behavior ('Destroys'), irreversibility ('one-time cancel token'), limitations ('Already-released rows are untouchable'), and an important authentication nuance ('The token proves nothing about who you are').

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The core action and key constraint are front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct information: what it destroys, what it cannot touch, and the access condition.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: preconditions, token semantics, and access lane. It does not describe the response shape or error behavior, but the low complexity and clear success/failure implications of a one-time token keep this from being a significant 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 100%, so the schema fully documents the token parameter including its format. The description adds functional context by explaining the token is one-time and was returned when the capsule was sent, but this is not significant additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 identifies the action ('Destroys'), the specific resource (a future-dated capsule sent with holdMs and cancellable:true), and the mechanism (one-time cancel token). It also distinguishes what it does NOT handle ('Already-released rows'), making it easy to differentiate from other null_* tools.

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 gives explicit conditions for use: the capsule must be future-dated, sent with cancellable:true, and accompanied by its one-time cancel token. It also states when not to use it ('Already-released rows are untouchable') and provides an operational constraint ('Private-lane-only: use the stdio door').

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