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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description goes further: it warns there is no restoration, that re-running analysis requires a new submission, and that this deletes the saved analysis early (before normal expiry). These are exactly the consequences an agent needs before invoking a destructive 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the alternatives, then the irreversibility warning. Every sentence carries distinct, necessary 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. For a destructive, single-parameter deletion tool, the description covers scope, prerequisites, alternatives, and irreversibility — nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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% and the schema already documents job_id as required and sourced from apk_teardown_submit's response. The description only restates 'by job_id' without adding format or lookup detail, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema — 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 (purge/delete) and resource (an APK teardown job's stored record and result), scoped by job_id and qualified as happening 'before their normal expiry.' It explicitly names sibling tools (apk_teardown_job_status, apk_teardown_diff), so an agent can distinguish it from the other apk_teardown_* operations.

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 when-to-use guidance routing the agent to alternatives: retrieve needed results with apk_teardown_job_status first, or use apk_teardown_diff to compare completed jobs before purging. The condition that selects each alternative is spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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