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

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds real substance: a running live session is terminated, past results remain readable via sparka_results_get by session_id until retention ends, and decks using the ID stop working. It also explains the ID-never-rotated workaround and the user-confirmation requirement, none of which is in the annotations.

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?

The permanent-delete action and its session side effect are front-loaded; subsequent sentences cover consequences, recovery of results, and the ID-retirement recipe. The parenthetical is dense but carries non-obvious operational guidance, so no sentence is wasted.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: consequences, safety confirmation, downstream breakage, and how to recover results. Return values are correctly left to the output schema.

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 0% (the pattern is the only constraint), so the description must carry meaning — and it does, by explaining that the presentation_id is permanent (IDs never rotate), that dependent decks break on delete, and how to obtain a fresh ID. It stops short of saying where to source the ID (list/get), leaving one 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 ("Permanently deletes a presentation") plus the scope of what else ends (live session). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like sparka_presentation_save, sparka_presentation_get, and sparka_presentation_list.

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 concrete use case beyond simple removal (retiring an over-shared ID) with an explicit follow-up procedure, and states the prerequisite to confirm with the user first. It does not explicitly say when to prefer an alternative (e.g. save/edit instead of delete), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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