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

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent, but the description adds concrete behavioral context beyond them: share and edit links stop working the moment it returns, nothing can be recovered, and a confirmation step exists in the delete-agenda skill. That is genuine added value over the structured hints.

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 sentences front-load the destructive scope and irreversibility, then a third routes to the sibling and the return shape. No filler, 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?

For a destructive mutation with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, nothing an agent needs is missing. The return value is even restated (slightly redundant given the output schema) but harmless.

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 token descriptions already explain sourcing and the linked-account exception, so the schema carries the burden. The description only loosely ties 'share and edit links' and 'linked account' concepts to the tokens without adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (deletes an agenda) plus scope (timer history, permanent). It explicitly contrasts with release_agenda, so an agent can distinguish it from that sibling without opening a 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?

Names the alternative tool (release_agenda), describes what that alternative does (removes from a linked account, keeps share link alive), and states the precondition that this is for a user-confirmed agenda. When-to-use and when-not are both explicit.

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