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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent. The description adds useful context by emphasizing permanence ('for good') and a confirmation threshold ('clearly asks'), which goes beyond the structured fields.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted language. The destructive action is front-loaded, and the usage caution follows immediately.

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 one-parameter deletion tool with rich annotations, the description covers the core action and confirmation requirement. It does not describe any post-deletion consequences, but no output schema exists and the annotations already signal destructiveness.

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?

There is only one parameter, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain what subgoal_id is, its format, or how to obtain it. The description implies the parameter targets a subgoal but adds no meaningful semantic guidance.

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 and resource: 'Delete a goal's subgoal.' It clearly distinguishes the resource from delete_goal and delete_task, though it does not explicitly name or contrast alternatives.

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?

It gives one useful condition, 'Only when the user clearly asks to delete it,' which prevents accidental deletion. However, it does not mention alternatives such as update_subgoal or when not to delete, so usage guidance is only partially covered.

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