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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known structurally. The description reinforces this with 'Cannot be undone' and exposes the underlying DELETE /avatars/{avatarId} endpoint, which is useful but largely restates what the annotations encode; it adds no auth or side-effect detail beyond that.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and entity, then the irreversible warning, then the endpoint. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter delete with no output schema and a full-coverage input schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the target entity, scope ('your personal'), the irreversible consequence, and the HTTP route. Nothing material 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 description coverage is 100% — avatarId's format ('digits') and the conditional email parameter are both documented in the schema. The description adds nothing param-specific, 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Delete one of your personal avatars' names the exact entity and scopes it to the caller's own avatars, which separates it by resource from delete_element, delete_task, delete_voice and delete_uploads. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the resource noun makes disambiguation straightforward.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g. that the avatar must exist or that it is the caller's own), and no alternatives such as list_avatars to find the id first. The only operational note is the irreversibility warning.

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