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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that deletion cascades to subgoals and arrows, which the annotations do not convey. 'For good' implies permanence but never states it as a hard, irreversible guarantee, so not 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 short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive scope front-loaded before the usage caveat. Nothing repeats the title or schema.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering safety, the definition supplies the two things that matter: the cascade footprint and the caution bar. No output schema exists, so return-value detail is not owed; only the absence of any mention of dependent data recovery/irreversibility keeps it from 5.

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 0%, so the schema carries only a name and uuid format for goal_id with no prose. The description adds nothing about the identifier, but a single, self-evident required UUID parameter is the mildest possible case, so this sits at the minimum-viable 3.

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 ('Delete a goal') and immediately scopes the operation by naming what is destroyed alongside it ('its subgoals and arrows'). That cascade detail is what separates it from siblings like delete_subgoal, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

'Only when the user clearly asks to delete it' is an explicit, conservative when-to-use guard — a meaningful constraint for a destructive tool. It does not name alternatives (e.g., update_goal or archiving) for a user who wants to remove but not destroy, so it falls short of the top band.

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