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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is to say what is destroyed and what remains — and it does: summary cleared, future saves paused, empty version marker retained, resumable later. It doesn't address whether current data is recoverable after the fact beyond the marker, but the disclosure is well above baseline.

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?

Three short sentences, trigger condition front-loaded, then effect, then recovery path. No filler and no repetition of annotation or schema data.

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?

For a destructive, no-output-schema tool the description covers trigger, effect, retention, and reversal, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The remaining gap is the unexplained required parameters, particularly the version precondition.

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% for two required parameters. The description never mentions request_id (uuid) or expected_version (integer, min 0), so an agent gets no hint that expected_version is an optimistic-concurrency check that must match the current profile version. With zero coverage, the description needed to compensate and doesn't.

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 concrete verb chain (clear the career summary, pause future saves) and clarifies that the operation is a soft delete retaining an empty version marker, which resolves the ambiguity in the name 'delete_profile'. It also distinguishes the counterpart operation (update_profile with resume=True). It stops short of a full sibling comparison but the effect is unambiguous.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: 'when the user asks to forget or stop remembering', which is a strong when-to-use signal. It also describes the path back ('resume via update_profile'). It doesn't state when NOT to use it (e.g., partial clearing via update_profile), but the guidance is clear.

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