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

Adds significant context beyond annotations: explains soft-delete mechanism, still readable via list_watchlists with status=all/archived, name freed for reuse, idempotency, and tier restriction. 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?

Four sentences, no redundant information. Front-loaded with action and key constraints. Every sentence provides essential behavioral or usage detail.

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?

Given low complexity (1 parameter, soft-delete), the description fully covers behavior, side effects, and usage context. Output schema exists but is not needed for completeness.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'case-insensitive, 1–80 chars' and 'frees the name for reuse', which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's parameter description.

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 clearly states the tool soft-deletes a watchlist by name, distinguishing it from save_watchlist (create/update) and list_watchlists (read). The verb 'soft-delete' and resource 'watchlist' are specific.

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?

Explicitly mentions using name instead of id, idempotent behavior, and tier restriction. Could be improved by stating when to avoid this tool (e.g., for permanent deletion), but it is clear enough.

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