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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds specific behavioral consequences: status flips to 'deleted', it is removed from the cron evaluator index so it stops firing, and it is idempotent. It also discloses the tier restriction ('sp500+'). No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences pack the action, side effects, immutability guidance, idempotency, and access tier without any redundancy. The core action is front-loaded and each clause earns its place.

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 destructive tool with full schema coverage, annotation coverage, and an output schema, the description provides everything needed: the operation, its effect on the signal and cron index, the mutation strategy, idempotency, and access restrictions. Nothing critical 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 schema's signal_id description already states the source ('as returned by create_signal or list_signals'). The description reinforces this but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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 the specific action 'Soft-delete a signal by its id', names the resource, and clarifies the effect ('status flips to deleted', 'removed from the cron evaluator index'). It also distinguishes from update_signal by declaring signals immutable, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does versus 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?

It explicitly states the id source (create_signal/list_signals) and gives a clear directive for the alternative: 'to change one, delete then create_signal.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (deletion) and when not to use it for updates, which is valuable given the presence of update_signal among siblings.

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