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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the append-state.deleted side effect and the authorization requirement, but says nothing about idempotency, behavior when the key is absent, or how if_revision affects the operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loading the action and scope before the prerequisite. No wasted words, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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?

A destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage needs substantially more: any hint about failure modes, revision handling, or what the deleted/revision response looks like is missing.

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 0% across 4 parameters. The description vaguely maps to 'key' and the auth requirement behind 'read_token', but address_id is never mentioned and if_revision — an optimistic-concurrency control with clear semantic weight — is entirely unexplained.

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 ('Delete one state key') and names the side effect ('append state.deleted'), which clearly separates it from get_state and set_state. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives a prerequisite ('requires existing user authorization for deletion') but never states when to choose this over set_state/get_state or what happens on missing/expired authorization. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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