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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses immediate and irreversible destruction ('crypto-shred'), but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or error states. The destructive intent is clear, earning high marks.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence with one parenthetical. It is front-loaded with essential information and contains no fluff.

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 the simplicity of the tool, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention return values, success indicators, or error conditions, leaving the agent without expectations for invocation results.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying the code is a 'room/handoff code', whereas the schema only defines it as a string. This context helps the agent understand what value to provide.

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 uses the specific verb '파기한다' (destroy) and resource '방/핸드오프 코드' (room/handoff code), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like 'baton_approve' or 'baton_create_room' which have different focus.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, when not to, or alternative tools. For example, it does not mention scenarios where revocation is appropriate or prerequisites like ownership of the code.

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