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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's real contribution is the soft-delete semantics ('sets deletedAt; recoverable'), which the annotations do not convey and which materially changes how an agent reasons about risk. The 'no-op success on an already-deleted row' sentence largely restates idempotentHint=true, so it adds less than the first two clauses.

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 with no filler: what it does first, when to use it second, edge-case behavior last. Every clause carries distinct information and the destructive/soft-delete nature is front-loaded.

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 delete with no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, reversibility, the recovery tool to call next, and the already-deleted edge case. There is nothing an agent needs in order to invoke this correctly that 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 (processId) and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself describing it as 'UUID of the process model.' The description adds no format hints or validation notes beyond the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level but is not above baseline.

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 BPMN process model') and immediately qualifies the scope by naming the recovery sibling stride.restore_process. An agent can tell this apart from stride.list_processes, stride.get_process, and the many other delete_* tools without opening any 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?

'Use to clean up a process generated in error' gives a concrete selection condition, and the reference to stride.restore_process points at the alternative for the undo case. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g. processes in active sprints or with dependent artifacts), so it is clear context rather than a full routing rule.

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