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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing exactly what gets written (deletedAt), what cascades (dependent stories have epicId nulled), what is explicitly preserved (stories themselves are not deleted), and that the operation is atomic. The annotation hints destructive/idempotent, but only the description tells the agent the blast radius.

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 with the operation front-loaded and the cascade consequence placed where a reader will see it. No filler; the parenthetical clarifying that stories survive is well placed rather than wasteful.

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 rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to predict the effect. The only meaningful gap is not saying whether restore_epic can undo the tombstone or how a nonexistent epic is handled.

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% and the single epicId parameter is fully documented in the schema as a UUID. The description's reference to 'epicId' concerns the story field being nulled, not the input, so it adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 an epic') and immediately qualifies it as a soft delete, which cleanly separates it from the sibling delete_* tools and points toward restore_epic as the inverse. The verb+resource+modifier combination is unambiguous.

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 makes the soft-delete nature and idempotency clear, which implies 'use this when you want the epic tombstoned but recoverable,' but it never explicitly names restore_epic or states when to prefer it over other epic operations. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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