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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: the share link survives 7 more days before expiring, the release is irreversible, and list_agendas stops showing the agenda. These are exactly the operational consequences an agent needs before an irreversible action.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information (effect, lifecycle consequence, irreversibility), with the core action front-loaded. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but nothing is redundant.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing pieces — deferred expiry, finality, and disappearance from list_agendas. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single required parameter whose schema description already identifies it as a share_token sourced from list_agendas or create_agenda. The prose adds nothing further about the parameter, so 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+resource ('takes one agenda out of the BriefMe account') and pins down the exact semantics — the agenda leaves the account and frees a slot rather than being erased. This is meaningfully different from the sibling delete_agenda, and an agent can tell the two apart from the text alone.

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 closing clause ('it fits an agenda the user has explicitly chosen to drop') gives implied usage context, but the obvious alternative, delete_agenda, is never named or contrasted. The agent must infer when to pick release over delete.

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