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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds non-trivial context beyond them: the operation "requires approval by default," which explains the approval_id parameter and the human-in-the-loop flow. It does not cover reversibility or what happens to linked records, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the usage trigger before the behavioral caveat. Appropriately sized for a simple destructive tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the approval requirement, making it complete enough for correct invocation, though it omits consequences/reversibility.

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 description coverage is 100%, so debt_id and approval_id are already documented, with approval_id carrying a detailed single-use note. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (removed/delete) and resource (debt record), and the title reinforces it. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like debts.update or debts.list, but the delete action is unambiguous from name and description.

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?

"When the user wants a debt record removed" gives a clear usage trigger, which is more than nothing. However, it offers no when-not-to-use guidance or alternative (e.g., update to correct instead of delete), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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