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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the bar is the added context — and the description delivers it: irreversibility ('This cannot be undone'), the digest staleness/expiry refusal rule, the required permissions (applications.deploy and stacks.delete), and the follow-up polling pattern. This is well beyond the safety hints.

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 destructive action and scope, then prerequisites, irreversibility, follow-up, and permissions — every sentence earns its place. Slightly dense with parenthetical asides, but nothing is redundant.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite tool, the follow-up verification tool, the failure modes (changed/expired digest), irreversibility, and required permissions. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value for `digest`: it must be the exact value returned by prepare_service_retirement and is invalidated if the plan changed or expired. It is less specific about retirement_id/instance_id beyond naming their source, so it lands just above baseline.

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 specific verbs and resource: 'Confirm a prepared retirement and DELETE the managed service and its data'. Explicitly positions itself as step two of `ankra services delete` and names the sibling tools prepare_service_retirement and get_service_retirement, so an agent can distinguish it from them without opening schemas.

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 explicit sequencing: it must follow prepare_service_retirement (whose digest it consumes) and be followed by get_service_retirement until it settles. It also states the precondition that the digest must be unchanged and unexpired, which is exactly the when-to-use condition an agent needs.

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