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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying the deletion is soft/recoverable and never hard-destroys data. This adds essential behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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, both information-dense, with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core message.

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 simple two-parameter deletion tool with annotations and a clear description, all necessary context is present. The absence of an output schema is fine; return values are implicit. The recoverable aspect is clearly communicated.

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?

The description does not add parameter-level detail; the schema already documents 'object' with an enum and 'id' as a string, giving 50% coverage. Since coverage is not low, the baseline applies, and the description's focus on behavior is acceptable.

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 clearly identifies a soft-delete operation on records, with a specific guarantee that data is recoverable via relm_restore. This differentiates it from other delete-related siblings (relm_delete_connection, relm_delete_webhook) and from any permanent delete.

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 description implies the appropriate use case: deleting records while preserving recoverability. It names relm_restore as the recovery mechanism, providing clear operational context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with a permanent-delete alternative, though none appears among siblings for core objects.

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