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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two valuable traits: the `[PUBLIC WRITE]` marker signals a mutation, and "without modifying the raw files" scopes the side effect. However, it says nothing about reversibility, confirmation requirements, or what happens to the rejected cell after deletion.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the operation type tagged first and the scope constraint second; nothing is wasted. Slightly clipped for the amount of behavioral information a mutation tool needs.

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 only two well-documented required parameters and no output schema, the structural side is simple and fully covered. But for an unannotated destructive operation, the description should say whether the rejection is permanent and what state remains afterward; that gap keeps it at minimum-viable.

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 both parameters (`id`, `folder`) are documented in the schema with examples. The description adds only the framing that the cell is "proposed" and lives in a sidecar workspace; it gives no extra detail on ID format or folder resolution 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 and resource ("Delete a proposed cell") plus a scope qualifier ("from the sidecar workspace"). It is distinguishable from the sibling `accept`, but it never names that counterpart explicitly, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 phrase "proposed cell" implies the use case (rejecting a proposal you don't want), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no reference to `accept` as the alternative branch. The agent must infer the decision from the sibling list.

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