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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses the specific effect (sets deleted_at, hidden from .live scope) and confirms re-deleting is a no-op success. This adds meaningful behavioral context, though it does not mention potential side effects or permissions.

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 a single concise sentence with a clarifying second sentence. It front-loads the action and uses no filler. Every clause adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 mutation tool with annotations, the description adequately explains the operation and idempotent behavior. However, with three unexplained parameters and no output schema, the agent may not know how to invoke it correctly or interpret the response. It is functional but not fully complete.

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?

The schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain node_id, device_id, or client_hlc. It only implies node_id identifies the target through the operation context. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly states 'Soft-delete an env_sync graph node' using a specific verb and resource, and elaborates the mechanism (sets deleted_at, .live scope hides it from reads). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like graph_write or sync_delete.

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?

The description implies usage for soft-deleting graph nodes by explaining soft-delete semantics and idempotency, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or when a hard delete might be appropriate. The context is present but no exclusions are given.

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