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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and non-readOnly, and the description adds the value the annotations cannot: the exact blast radius (questions, polls, workshop bookings, ratings) plus the dry-run/preview behavior of omitting confirm. This is precisely the 'what gets destroyed' disclosure the rubric rewards.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the risk label (WRITE, IRREVERSIBLE) first, the delete and cascade scope second, the confirm safety valve third, and the raw endpoint last. Zero filler.

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?

No output schema, but none is needed: the preview-vs-delete behavior is stated, both parameters are covered, and the destructive consequence is fully described. An agent has everything required to call this correctly.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema (confirm's preview semantics are spelled out there verbatim). The description restates the confirm rule without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("delete a session") with explicit parenthetical scope ("lecture or workshop") and the cascade targets named. It is unambiguously distinct from the sibling create_session / update_session tools without opening any schema.

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 explains the confirm gate precisely: without confirm:true nothing is deleted and a preview is returned, and it tells the agent to ask the user to approve first. It gives clear context but does not name alternative tools (e.g. update_session for reversible edits).

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