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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent, and the description adds valuable detail: deletion is permanent, repeated calls on missing IDs return success with 'already_absent: true' instead of an error, and a confirmation is returned for the decision_id. This goes beyond what annotations alone 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?

Three short sentences carry all essential information: the operation, permanence warning and prerequisite review, idempotency behavior, and return value. There is no filler or 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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical aspects an agent needs: what is deleted, how permanent it is, what happens on repeat deletion, and what the response indicates. Nothing important is missing.

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, decision_id, is already described as 'Decision ID to delete.' The description reinforces this by saying 'by id' and referencing decision_id in the return, but adds no format, source, or additional constraints beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Delete one decision-memory record by id,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling deletion tools like delete_connector, delete_deployment, and delete_trigger. It also names the exact parameter behavior without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context for when deletion is appropriate and warns to 'review with list_decisions first.' It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the resource-specific language makes the intended use obvious and the prereview guidance adds practical direction.

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