pad_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces irreversibility rather than contradicting. It adds real value beyond the annotations by disclosing the concurrency-guard purpose of expected_revision, though it doesn't say what happens on a revision mismatch (fail vs. ignore).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and the safer alternative; every clause carries information.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description covers irreversibility, the archive alternative, and the revision guard. The only omission is the failure behavior when expected_revision doesn't match.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate; it explains expected_revision ('guards against deleting a pad someone just updated') which is the non-obvious parameter. pad_id is self-evident and project_id is documented in the schema, leaving only minor gaps.

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 ('Permanently delete a pad') and immediately contrasts it with the safer sibling 'pad_archive', so an agent can distinguish it from the other pad_* tools without reading schemas.

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 pad_archive') and gives the reason ('Irreversible'), which is exactly the when-to-use/when-not guidance needed for a destructive tool.

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