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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the irreversibility statement reinforces destruction, and the 'currently sending' constraint is a behavioral rule not captured in the structured fields.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then the constraint, then the irreversibility warning. No wasted words and the most important information comes first.

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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action, a key precondition, an alternative tool path, and irreversibility. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly or route elsewhere.

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 single parameter is fully documented as a UUID, so the description correctly does not repeat it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since no additional parameter meaning is provided beyond the schema.

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 (delete) and resource (broadcast), and qualifies it with 'Permanently' to distinguish from soft-delete siblings like meisa_delete_sequence. Clear which sibling verb is being applied.

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?

Provides an explicit precondition ('currently sending cannot be deleted') and names the alternative action ('cancel it first with meisa_cancel_broadcast'). This is clear routing guidance, though it doesn't cover every alternative such as pause vs cancel.

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