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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes far beyond them: it enumerates the exact cascade (assessments deleted, comparison membership lost, contribution/sensitivity analyses detached, report citations left dangling), states irreversibility, and explains the preview path. It also discloses the engine-copy deletion preconditions and the authorization level required.

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 core action and irreversibility, then organized by consequence, preview, and engine copy. It is dense rather than padded, but repeats the confirm/preview behavior already stated in the schema and runs long for four parameters.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what is destroyed, what survives, what the preview returns, and the permission gate. No output schema exists, so explaining return values is unnecessary and its absence is not a 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic linkage the schema does not: it ties `confirm` to a preview that lists every affected ref by type, and ties `delete_engine_copy` to the 'Aevia created it and engine writable' condition plus the refusal threshold. That is genuine added meaning, though much of it overlaps the schema text.

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 and resource ('Delete a saved product system (`s<N>`) and its assessments') plus the scope ('from a workspace'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `lca_delete_authored` for engine-authored processes/flows. An agent can route correctly 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 concrete when-to-use conditions: without `confirm: true` it only previews, and it names the alternative tool for a different object type. The access-level prerequisite for `delete_engine_copy` (Execute level, otherwise refused) is also spelled out, so the agent knows both the trigger and the exclusion.

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