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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a soft-delete (implying recoverability) and affects all active versions, which is valuable. However, it omits permissions required, whether the action is reversible, and any side effects beyond scope.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste. The key scoping constraint (all active versions) and action (soft-delete) are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable.

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?

The tool is a mutation with no annotations and a rich output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers the core action and scope but leaves out behavioral context like required permissions or recoverability, which matters for a soft-delete operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal detail (the name identifies the playbook to target, and reason is required per schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (soft-delete), resource (all active versions of a playbook), and scope (by name). It distinguishes itself from generic memory_forget and memory_forget_skill by targeting playbook versions, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives to help the agent route correctly.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the correct tool when it wants to forget a procedure rather than a skill or other memory entity.

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