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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally; the description nonetheless adds real value by describing what actually breaks (printed copies, scans showing "no longer active") and that the action is irreversible. It does not cover the response or error behavior, but for a single-record delete that is a minor gap.

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?

Three short sentences ordered by importance: what it does, what breaks, then how to proceed safely. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of 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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, consequence, irreversibility, required confirmation, and the safer alternative. An agent has everything it needs to call it correctly and responsibly.

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 single parameter's description already states its format and source (my_qr_codes or create_qr_code). The prose adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource with an ownership scope ("one of the signed-in user's QR codes"), and the following sentence describes the concrete effect of deletion. This clearly separates it from update_qr_code and the read-only my_qr_codes sibling.

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 an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: suggest pausing via update_qr_code with status "paused" if the code may be needed again. It also specifies a procedural precondition (warn the user and get a clear yes), leaving nothing to inference.

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