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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substance: permanence ('it cannot be undone'), the blast radius ('all their spellings and facts'), and the audit side effect ('the journal keeps a line that a person was deleted, without the name'). It also states the write-permission requirement, which annotations do not convey.

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 destructive warning and confirmation requirement are front-loaded, and each sentence carries new information (irreversibility, audit trail, alternative tool, permissions). The trailing permission clause is a fragment that would read better placed earlier, costing it a point.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: irreversibility, confirmation step, the correct alternative for proposed persons, audit behavior, and the permission gate.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining that the id comes from list_persons. The description adds no syntax or formatting guidance for the id beyond that, so the baseline of 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 ('Remove a person from a project's register') and adds scope detail ('with all their spellings and facts'). It also distinguishes itself from the nearest alternative by naming set_person with state 'rejected' and from list_persons as the source of the id.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('only when the person asked for this very one to be deleted; confirm the name with them first') and explicit when-not ('To turn down a PROPOSED person use set_person with state 'rejected' instead'), plus the authorization boundary ('Members of the project who may write only'). Nothing is left to inference.

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