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

Annotations already warn that the operation is destructive and not read-only. The description adds the important behavioral detail that deletion is permanent and that only queued, draft, or archived items are eligible, though it does not discuss permissions or cascading effects.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and purposeful. The first states what happens and to which items; the second states the selection condition and contrasts with archiving.

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 destructive one-parameter tool, the definition covers action, targeting, eligibility, permanence, and when to use it. Safety annotations and the input schema carry the rest, so nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the single parameter is already documented as "Item id." The description only repeats the id-based targeting, so it does not add meaningful 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Permanently deletes one ... library item"), plus scope ("one ... by id") that separates it from bulk deletion and from archiving. The status list (queued, draft, archived) further narrows what this tool 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?

Gives an explicit usage condition: the user must explicitly want the item gone rather than archived. That clearly distinguishes this from the archive-oriented siblings and, together with "one ... by id," from bulk_delete_library.

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