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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real substance: bindings are cleared, existing publication snapshots keep their original content, and nothing is published. That 'deletion is not retroactive for published content' fact is exactly the kind of consequence an agent cannot infer from the annotations, though reversibility and permission requirements remain unstated.

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?

Four short sentences, each contributing: action, side effect, caveat, and non-effect. The opening 'Use this when managing post auto-signatures' is the one line that does not earn its place and slightly delays the actual action statement.

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?

With a single required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and destructive/idempotent annotations already present, the description covers the remaining gaps (binding cleanup, snapshot preservation, no publishing). Only irreversibility and any auth/permission expectations are 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 signatureId field already documents its own origin ('Owner-bound signatureId from list_signatures/create_signature'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond the 'owner-bound' qualifier already implied.

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 second sentence gives a precise verb+resource: 'Delete an owner-bound auto-signature and clear its bindings.' The verb alone separates it from create_signature, update_signature, get_signature, and list_signatures, though no sibling is named explicitly and the opening sentence ('managing post auto-signatures') is close to generic.

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?

'Use this when managing post auto-signatures' names a domain, not a decision condition; it does not tell the agent when deletion is appropriate versus update_signature, archive_post, or leaving the signature in place. No alternatives or preconditions are mentioned.

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