Permanently delete a saved brief

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds crucial context: deletion is permanent and unrecoverable, no check is run before deletion, and saved briefs are stored encrypted until removed. It also explains the API key requirement. This goes well beyond the annotations and fully discloses the destructive behavior.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the most important fact (permanent deletion). Every sentence adds meaningful context: permanence, when to call, no-check behavior, opt-in saving, encryption, and API key. Slightly long but each clause earns its place; no redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what gets deleted, permanence, confirmation step, no-check behavior, storage/encryption context, and authentication requirement. The sibling list and schema complete the picture.

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 the single parameter 'id' is already described in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the id comes from save_brief or list_briefs and that it should be confirmed if in doubt. Since the schema already covers the parameter well, a 4 is appropriate rather than 5.

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 states a specific verb ('Permanently delete'), a specific resource ('a brief and all its saved versions'), and the account context ('user's proofread.law account'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like save_brief, update_brief, and list_briefs by emphasizing permanence and deletion.

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?

Explicitly says 'Only call it when the user asks to delete that brief' and instructs to confirm with list_briefs if the id is in doubt. It also clarifies that saving is opt-in and that check_citations/check_document never save, which prevents misuse. This is strong when-to-use guidance with an alternative named.

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