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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing login requirement, hard/irreversible deletion semantics, exactly what survives (account, profile, products), the previewHash confirmation gate, and that ownership/version drift causes rejection. For a destructive mutation this is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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 dense paragraph with a leading bracket tag that front-loads the auth requirement; each clause carries information (scope, precondition, default, execution, rejection). The compressed ';'-separated style is efficient but not the most 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?

Covers auth, destruction scope, preservation scope, the two-phase preview/execute flow, and rejection conditions — sufficient for a 4-param destructive tool with no output schema. It stops short of describing what the preview response returns (presumably the previewHash).

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the execution contract: same params plus previewHash, consent=true, preview=false, and that the default is preview. It does not explain where previewHash is obtained or the meaning of the 64-hex constraint, leaving a small gap.

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 and resource (hard-delete own company homepage plus its audit records) and immediately scopes what is NOT deleted (account/profile/products), which cleanly separates it from update_my_company and the many archive_* 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?

Gives a clear workflow and when-to-use condition: call get_my_company first, default is preview, and only use this tool when full deletion is explicitly requested, with the confirm-and-execute path spelled out. It never names the alternative (e.g. archive_my_company) for reversible hiding, so the exclusion is implied rather than explicit.

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