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

Although annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds consequences the annotations cannot express: checkpoint history is lost and re-registering the shipment burns another credit. That is precisely the extra context the lower bar asks for on an annotated tool.

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?

Leads with 'WRITE (destructive)' so the risk class is front-loaded, then the consequence, the confirmation requirement, and the endpoint. Every clause carries distinct information with no 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?

For a one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, consequence, preconditions, and where the id comes from. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely 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 description coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter is fully documented there (source and format). The description only restates 'by id' and adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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+scope: 'permanently remove one tracking ... by id'. The word 'permanently' and the singular scope separate it cleanly from trackingmore_update_tracking (modify) and trackingmore_list_trackings (read), so no sibling schema needs to be opened.

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?

'Confirm with the user first' gives an explicit precondition for calling this tool, which is exactly the guidance an agent needs for a destructive operation. It does not, however, name an alternative (e.g. update_tracking) or state when deletion is the wrong choice, 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.