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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: it is a SOFT delete via deletedAt, it is recoverable through stride.restore_diagram, and re-deleting returns a no-op success rather than an error. That is exactly the extra context 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mechanism, followed by the use case and the edge-case behavior. 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?

For a single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action semantics, recoverability, and idempotent edge-case behavior, while annotations carry the safety profile. Nothing material to a correct call 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?

Only one parameter, diagramId, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('UUID of the diagram'). The description adds nothing about the identifier format or sourcing, so 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+resource ('soft-delete an architecture diagram') and immediately clarifies the mechanism (sets deletedAt) and the counterpart tool (stride.restore_diagram). This separates it cleanly from siblings like delete_design, delete_process, and restore_diagram.

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 a concrete use case ('clean up a diagram generated in error') and names the recovery alternative stride.restore_diagram. It does not spell out when not to use it (e.g., diagrams referenced by other artifacts), but the conditional context is clear.

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