list_deleted_persona_versions

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 reveals a key behavioral trait: deleted version numbers stay reserved and gaps are normal, not corruption. This prevents misinterpretation of the data. It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, but for a read-only list operation, this is sufficient.

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 concise sentences. The first achieves the core purpose and links to the restore tool. The second adds valuable behavioral context without unnecessary words. 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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and why gaps occur. It lacks details about the return format (e.g., whether it returns full version objects), but this is mitigated by the existence of sibling tools like read_persona_version. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'id' with a description. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate further.

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?

The description explicitly states it lists 'deleted version rows' for a persona and identifies them as 'restore candidates' for restore_deleted_persona_version. This clearly distinguishes it from list_persona_versions (which lists non-deleted versions) and ties it to a specific workflow.

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 description indicates when to use by linking to the restore tool ('restore candidates for restore_deleted_persona_version'). It also warns that gaps in version numbers are expected. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like list_persona_versions, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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