Delete memo

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description adds the non-recoverable consequence ('This cannot be undone'), which is value beyond the annotations. It stops short of stating auth/ownership requirements or whether linked comments and attachments are also removed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and consequence, then the routing advice. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 destructive tool with no output schema and annotations covering destructiveness/idempotency, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: irreversibility and the safer alternative. It leaves unaddressed whether related artifacts (comments, attachments) are cascaded.

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 the single 'memo' parameter is fully documented in the schema (id, resource name, or URL), so the description adds nothing about the argument. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 ('Permanently delete a memo') with the scope adverb 'permanently' that separates it from soft-delete siblings. An agent can distinguish it from delete_attachment and archive-style operations without opening the 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?

Explicitly names the preferred alternative ('Prefer update_memo with archived=true') and the condition that overrides it ('unless the user explicitly asked to delete'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance that prevents accidental destructive calls.

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