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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the consequences: stops appearing in feed, share link goes dark, no longer publicly reachable, and explicitly says 'Nothing is deleted' while noting the review exception. No annotation contradiction exists.

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-load the primary action, then detail effects, then add the restore caveat. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no wasted words.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, ownership restriction, visibility effects, reversibility, and the review exception. It is nearly complete, though it does not hint at error cases or how the agent would know a confession was taken down for review.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented confession_id. It adds meaning for restore ('ask again with restore set to true to put it back'), but it does not clarify how to identify or supply confession_id beyond implying ownership.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Take one of your own confessions down,' with clear effects on feed visibility and share links. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as set_sharing or read_confessions.

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 provides clear context for when the tool applies, including the ownership restriction ('only do this to confessions you wrote') and the reversible nature via restore. It gives a when-not condition but does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when to choose this over a sibling.

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