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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false only indicates it is a write operation, but the description adds crucial behavioral details: the soft-delete nature (non-destructive, likely recoverable) and the authorization requirement of being the reply author. This goes well beyond what annotations convey.

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, front-loaded sentence containing all essential information: the action, the resource, the permission requirement, and the deletion behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 delete operation with only two parameters, the description covers purpose, authorization precondition, and deletion type (soft). No output schema is needed, and the description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (session_id and reply_id), so the schema already provides full parameter meaning. The description does not add any additional parameter details, matching the baseline score.

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 'Delete a forum reply' uses a specific verb and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like forum_delete_thread (thread deletion) and forum_reply (creating a reply).

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 states two clear usage constraints: 'You must be the reply author' and 'Soft delete only,' which provide context on when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as pointing to forum_delete_thread for thread deletion.

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