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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses a critical side effect the structured fields cannot convey: deleting a theme reassigns any quizzes using it to the default theme, because otherwise a published quiz would break. That is exactly the kind of cascade consequence an agent needs before invoking a destructive action.

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 tightly packed sentences: the operations come first, then the deletion consequence, then the resource pointer for the list. No filler, and the most important warning is not buried.

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, non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential side effect of deletion and where to find theme IDs. It is largely complete, though it says nothing about restore preconditions (e.g. whether an already-deleted theme is required) or what copy returns.

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%: the enum values and both ID parameters are already documented in the schema, including the theme://list and workspace://list provenance. The description adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail beyond that, 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?

The description names a specific resource (themes) and enumerates the three concrete operations (copy, delete, restore), so an agent can immediately tell this apart from single-purpose siblings like create_theme or update_theme. It does not explicitly name those siblings as the alternative, which is the only thing separating it from a 5.

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?

Each action carries an implicit reason to use it: copy exists 'so you don't have to rewrite the theme from scratch', delete is for unwanted themes, restore brings back deleted ones. This gives clear context for choosing an action, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to a sibling tool for the cases this tool does not cover.

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