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 genuinely new behavioral context: the operation is two-phase, the first invocation is non-destructive and returns a confirm_token, and deletion does not cascade to the user's bottles. It does not cover permissions or failure modes on an invalid token, so not 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its non-obvious side effect, then the call sequence. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies the one return detail that matters (confirm_token from the preview call) plus the consent workflow an agent needs to execute a destructive two-step operation safely. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the return-value semantics the schema omits: the first call returns confirm_token and the token is only supplied on the second call. That clarifies the parameter's lifecycle beyond "Omit on the first call."

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 ("Delete one of your collections") and immediately scopes the blast radius with "Its bottles stay on your shelf," which separates it from remove_from_collection and remove_bottle. An agent can distinguish it from all 45 siblings without opening a 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?

Gives explicit procedural guidance: first call previews, show the preview, repeat only after user agreement. It clearly conditions the second call on user consent. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g., remove_from_collection for detaching bottles without deleting), so it is strong but not fully routing.

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