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

Goes far beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by spelling out irreversibility and the precise cascade per object type: a system absorbs its assessments, assessments detach from comparisons, reports survive with dead citations. It also discloses the Execute access-level requirement and the Aevia-authored/writable-engine preconditions for `delete_engine_copy`.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and ref grammar, and the consequence sentences are information-dense rather than padded. It runs long and repeats a few schema descriptions almost verbatim, so it is efficient but not maximally tight.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what is removed, what is preserved, what the no-confirm call returns, and the privilege level required. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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 100%, so the 3-baseline applies, and the description genuinely adds meaning by tying each `ref` prefix to a specific deletion cascade and by explaining that `delete_engine_copy` is honoured only under two conditions. Some content (confirm preview wording, ref prefix list) duplicates the schema verbatim, capping this below 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Delete a saved system, assessment, comparison, analysis or report") and enumerates the exact object namespace via the `s<N>`/`a<N>`/`c<N>`/`b<N>`/`v<N>`/`r<N>` prefix scheme. An agent can distinguish this from lca_get or engine_delete 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?

Gives clear operating context: without `confirm: true` the call is a no-op preview, and a process or flow authored into an engine must go through `engine_delete` instead. It names the alternative tool and the condition that routes to it, but offers no explicit exclusion guidance for the objects it does own (e.g., how to inspect before deleting).

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