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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that everything inside the help center is destroyed, that the agent key is revoked, that the action is irreversible, the 7-day auto-deletion rule, and the claimed-account guard. It also explains the return contract, including that a 'pending' status means background completion needing no further action.

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?

Front-loads the destructive action and irreversibility warning, then conditions, then return semantics, then args. Every sentence carries distinct information: the auto-deletion rule and the already_claimed outcome each prevent a specific agent error, so nothing is padding.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation scope, irreversibility, the claimed/unclaimed fork, and the shape and meaning of the return value including the 'pending' case. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide and call correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the schema documents both site_id and agent_key thoroughly, including the credential-handling rules. The description's Args section only restates site_id as 'as helpcenter_create_help_center returned it,' which the schema already says, and it omits agent_key entirely. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 the help center you created) plus the secondary effect (revoke its agent key) and the irreversibility. The scoping word 'unclaimed' in the title combined with the claimed-help-center sentence separates it cleanly from sibling deletes like helpcenter_delete_category and helpcenter_delete_redirect.

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 explicit when-to-use ('Only when the user asks for it, or when you created it by mistake') and an explicit when-not-to ('no need to clean up after handing over the claim link: an unclaimed help center is deleted by itself 7 days after creation'). It also names the outcome for the claimed case (answers already_claimed, deletes nothing), so the agent can predict behavior before calling.

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