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 'for good' (permanence) and a confirmation requirement, but says nothing about cascade effects on the parent goal or behavior when the subgoal_id is invalid.

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 with the action and the guardrail front-loaded and no filler. The informal 'for good' is the only soft spot.

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 single-parameter delete with no output schema and annotations covering destructiveness, purpose and trigger are adequately covered. It still omits error behavior, parent-goal impact, and whether deletion is reversible, which an agent invoking an irreversible operation would want.

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% and the description says nothing about subgoal_id, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema's type/format. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, which keeps this from a 1, but the low-coverage schema was not compensated for.

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's subgoal'), and the resource name itself separates it from the delete_goal/delete_task/delete_focus_point siblings. It is clear what is being removed, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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' gives an explicit trigger condition and guards against over-eager invocation, which is valuable for a destructive tool. It does not, however, mention alternatives such as update_subgoal or archive-style reversion when the intent is not hard deletion.

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