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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new information: that the delete requires approval by default, which is not derivable from the annotations or schema. The approval_id parameter exists in the schema, but the description surfaces the default-approval behavior explicitly.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and then the key behavioral constraint. No filler, though the destructive/approval points could be slightly more integrated.

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 and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the trigger, the destructive nature, and the approval requirement, leaving little an agent needs to know in order to invoke it correctly.

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 both gift_id and approval_id are already documented in the schema, including the single-use semantics of approval_id. The description adds no further parameter syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('removed') and resource ('a gift record'), so an agent immediately understands this deletes a gift. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like gifts.update or gifts.get, but the delete intent is unambiguous from the wording and name.

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 gift record removed' gives an implied trigger condition but names no alternatives (e.g., gifts.update for correction) and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the approval note. Usage is implied rather than fully scoped.

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