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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by explaining the necessity of the delete_token for ownership proof, and noting that deletion can occur before the paste's natural expiration. The destructiveHint annotation is confirmed. However, the description could also mention if the operation is irreversible or if it affects other users, but given the annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, the description is largely sufficient.

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?

The description is two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action and timing constraint, the second explains the key prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 required parameters and no nested objects, the description is complete. It explains the action, timing, and authentication requirement. It could be more complete by describing what happens upon success (e.g., confirmation message) but the absence of an output schema makes this acceptable.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining why the delete_token is required ('provides proof of ownership') and clarifies that code can be a short or long code or full URL. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, justifying a score of 4.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a xi.pe paste'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_paste and read_paste. It also adds the important context that deletion can happen before expiration, which clarifies the scope beyond a simple delete.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to delete before expiration) and what prerequisite is required (the delete_token). It implies when not to use it—if you lack the token, you cannot prove ownership—which is a clear exclusion criterion. No sibling tool is mentioned, but the token requirement effectively distinguishes it.

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