Plan to delete a ChurchTools person

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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false; the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that no write occurs, that the preview shows the whole record, and that the underlying delete is irreversible. The 'Writes nothing' claim sits in tension with readOnlyHint=false, but it is consistent with destructiveHint=false and steers the agent correctly (more cautious, never less), and openWorld coverage is not explained.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the single most decision-relevant fact ('Writes nothing'), followed by the preview scope and the irreversibility rationale. Nothing is wasted and no key point is buried.

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 one-parameter preview tool with no output schema, the description covers the return nature (a plan showing the whole record) and the irreversibility that motivates review. What is missing is the completion of the workflow — it never says the plan is executed elsewhere — but the core call semantics are otherwise sufficient.

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?

There is a single parameter (personId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents everything needed; the description adds nothing about the id format or any constraint. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: it returns a plan to delete a person, and explicitly says it writes nothing. That distinguishes it in spirit from the mutating siblings (ct_update_person, ct_delete_group) and from ct_execute_plan, though it never names ct_execute_plan as the follow-up and doesn't differentiate from siblings in so many words.

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?

Usage is only implied: by saying it returns a plan rather than performing the delete, an agent can infer this is the two-phase preview step, but the description never states when to prefer it, nor that the plan must subsequently be handed to ct_execute_plan to actually delete the person. That missing handoff is the one piece of routing an agent most needs here.

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