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

Discloses three behavioral facts beyond annotations: the operation is a soft-delete, it requires specific admin roles, and the user should be asked for confirmation before executing. The annotations only flag destructiveHint, so the description adds meaningful transparency without contradicting them.

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 short, front-loaded sentence conveys the key facts: admin scope, soft-delete behavior, role requirements, and user confirmation. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Combined with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential decision-making facts: authorization, destructive intent, soft-delete semantics, and confirmation. It does not detail what soft-delete means practically (e.g., whether the item disappears from menus or can be restored), which is a minor gap.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions and the description does not explain 'restaurant_id' or 'menu_item_id'. While the names are self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic nuance beyond the schema itself, and with 0% schema coverage it was expected to compensate.

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?

Begins with 'ADMIN: Soft-deletes a menu item', naming the exact action and resource with a specific verb. 'Soft-deletes' distinguishes it from permanent deletion, and the resource name distinguishes it from sibling create/update/list tools.

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?

States the required roles ('pac_cordinator or lunch_cordinator') and explicitly says to confirm with the user before performing the destructive operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the tool name and admin-only scope make the intended use reasonably clear.

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