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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further by disclosing what is actually destroyed (all responses), the external side effect (the share link stops working), irreversibility, and the admin_token auth requirement. That is precisely the extra context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, then consequences, then the safety instruction, then auth. No sentence is redundant.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the agent has everything needed: what is deleted, what collateral effects occur, that it is irreversible, and what credential is required.

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%, with both parameters documented including id/link formats, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description only adds that admin_token is an auth prerequisite, which is already reflected in the required list — baseline 3.

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 ("Permanently delete a decision") and immediately scopes the blast radius with "and all its responses." That cascade detail is enough to separate it from close_decision and reopen_decision, which are non-destructive state changes.

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 a procedural guideline ("confirm with the user first") that implies caution, but never names the obvious non-destructive alternative (close_decision) or states when deletion is the right choice versus closing. The when-to-use signal is implied rather than explicit.

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