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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is documented structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a mandatory human confirmation step and a recovery path via widget.restore. It does not say whether deleting a widget destroys its underlying data or config beyond the widget itself, which is the one remaining unknown for a destructive operation.

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, the destructive action and the confirmation requirement front-loaded, and the recovery hint last. Zero 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?

With rich annotations and an output schema present, the description covers the action, the guardrail, and the recovery route, which is enough to call it correctly. The only gap is the blast radius of the deletion (whether widget data is lost or recoverable only through widget.restore semantics).

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 widgetId description already tells the agent to obtain IDs via dashboard.read, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'say which widget goes' reinforces identification but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 (delete) and resource (chart or number widget on a dashboard), which is exactly enough to distinguish it from widget.update and widget.create. It also names widget.restore as the undo path, so an agent can route without opening another 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?

Gives a clear precondition: confirm with the user and identify the widget before calling. It also implies the alternative (widget.restore) for reversing the action. It stops short of explicitly stating when *not* to use this tool versus, say, widget.update for hiding a widget, but the guidance is well above implied.

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