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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description goes further: it discloses that the delete is soft (sets deletedAt), that it is recoverable, and that calling on an already-deleted row returns a no-op success. That edge-case behavior is genuinely non-obvious and adds real value beyond the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the soft-delete semantics are front-loaded and the recovery/idempotency notes follow logically.

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 everything an agent needs: what it does, that it's reversible, how to reverse it, and the already-deleted edge case.

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 100% and the single parameter (releaseId UUID) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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 and resource ('Soft-delete a release') and immediately clarifies the mechanism (sets deletedAt) versus a hard delete. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like stride.restore_release, which it names explicitly.

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?

Explicitly points to stride.restore_release as the recovery path, giving the agent a clear alternative for undo. It doesn't spell out prerequisites (permissions, whether the release must be in a certain state), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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