needfix_purge

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds that deletion is 'hard' (not soft/reversible) and that it is 'audited' (an audit record is produced from audit_reason). It does not say what gets cascaded or whether recovery is possible afterwards.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the key constraint appear before any subordinate clause.

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 an irreversible destructive tool with no output schema and thin annotations, the description covers the operation type and precondition but omits blast radius (what associated records are removed), irreversibility, and confirmation expectations. Adequate, not complete.

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 0% for both required parameters, so the description must carry the meaning. 'Audited' faintly maps to audit_reason, but neither parameter is explained—no format for needfix_id, no guidance on expected audit_reason content.

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 ('hard delete' / purge) on a specific resource (NeedFix) and adds the discriminating precondition 'already-archived'. That precondition separates it cleanly from siblings like needfix_archive and needfix_restore without opening any 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?

The 'already-archived' qualifier implies when the tool is legal, and 'audited' signals the audit trail requirement, so usage is inferable. But nothing states what to do instead for a non-archived NeedFix or warns that this is the irreversible terminal step versus archive.

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