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

Despite annotations covering readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, the description adds substantive behavioral detail: it is a soft-delete, the status becomes `deleted`, and the signal is removed from the cron evaluator index so it stops firing. It also discloses immutability and restates idempotency, and gives a tier constraint — all beyond what annotations provide.

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 efficient and front-loaded: the action and mechanism come first, followed by immutability guidance, idempotency, and tier constraint. Every sentence earns its place, and no filler is present.

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 destructive mutation, the description covers soft-delete behavior, cron index removal, immutability, idempotency, and tier requirements. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Given the annotations and schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it safely and 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully described in the schema, including its provenance from create_signal or list_signals. The description repeats that provenance ('by its id (from create_signal/list_signals)') but adds no format or syntax details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Soft-delete') and resource ('signal') and immediately clarifies the mechanism: status flips to `deleted` and the signal is removed from the cron evaluator index. It also distinguishes the tool from update_signal by noting signals are immutable and must be deleted then recreated. This lets an agent differentiate it from create_signal, list_signals, and other delete_* siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Provides clear usage context: use it to remove a signal by id, and to change a signal you must delete then create_signal. It also states the access tier ('sp500+ (sample rejected)'), which is a prerequisite. It does not mention restore_deleted as an undo path, but otherwise gives explicit guidance on when and how to use it.

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