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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the deletion is scoped to the library and does not cascade into quizzes where the question was added. It stops short of saying whether the removal is reversible or which permissions are needed.

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?

Two short sentences with zero padding; the action is front-loaded and the clarifying scope constraint follows immediately.

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 2-parameter delete tool with full schema coverage, no output schema and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies the one fact that could otherwise mislead (no cascade into quizzes). Missing only minor details such as reversibility.

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-schema, including where to obtain the IDs (workspace://list, get_favorite_questions). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource: it removes a question from the account's favorite-question library. The second sentence clarifies the scope boundary (quizzes keep the question), which separates it from delete-type siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement — an agent can infer this is not the tool for removing questions from surveys — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g. delete_quiz_answers) and no stated prerequisites.

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