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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: the underlying records survive as ordinary memories and are returned as recordMemoryIds. It does not cover error cases, permissions, or reversibility of the deletion itself, so it falls short of a 5.

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 tight sentences plus a conditional clause, front-loaded with the action and its scope. The reassurance about records is the one piece of extra information and it earns its place by preventing data-loss anxiety.

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?

With one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value information (recordMemoryIds) and the safety semantics of the deletion. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is absent.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains tableSlug and points to muninn_table_list. The description adds no 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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (a table you declared), and immediately clarifies the scope of deletion: the definition plus the record list. This distinguishes it from muninn_table_define, muninn_table_list, and muninn_memory_delete 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?

Explicitly states the triggering condition ("Call only when the user asks to delete or remove a table") and names the alternative tool (muninn_memory_delete) along with the condition under which it should be used instead. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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