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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered, but the description adds real value: it stresses the deletion is permanent/irreversible, names the underlying endpoint, and documents the success return shape ({ delete: true }). It stops short of mentioning permissions or error/failure behavior.

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 compact sentences with no waste; the mutating/irreversible nature is front-loaded, followed by the endpoint and return contract. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it destroys, irreversibility, the API mapping, and the return value. It lacks only failure-mode and permission context, a minor gap given annotation coverage.

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 (recordId, objectKey) are documented with examples in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('permanently DELETES a record') plus the exact API endpoint, so the agent knows precisely what operation this performs. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling create/update/get/list record tools.

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 never says when to choose this tool over alternatives. With siblings like knack_request (arbitrary API calls) and knack_update_record, the agent gets no guidance on routing, no prerequisites, and no warnings about what must be true before deleting.

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