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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it discloses that this is a soft delete setting deletedAt, that the operation is recoverable via stride.restore_design, that cross-links are preserved, and that repeat calls return a no-op success. These details are not inferable from destructiveHint or idempotentHint alone.

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 compact sentences, each delivering distinct information: operation semantics, recovery path, use case, side effects, and idempotent behavior. No filler or repetition.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation model, recoverability, preservation of relationships, and repeat-call behavior. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely and correctly appears 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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('UUID of the UI design'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description does not add format constraints or edge cases for designId; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Soft-delete a UI design and its variants') and clarifies the scope includes variants. An agent can distinguish it from sibling delete tools like delete_diagram or delete_document 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?

Provides a clear usage context ('Use to clean up a design generated in error') and points to the recovery path (stride.restore_design). It stops short of explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling delete tools, but the intended scenario is unambiguous.

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