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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: required permission scope, that the action is audited, and that recreating via set_cost_budget yields a new budget id rather than restoring the old one. This discloses non-reversibility and side effects the annotations do not.

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+resource and packed with useful clauses in roughly two sentences with little waste. Minor awkwardness in 'audited with what it removed' slightly blunts the structure.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, it covers permissions, audit, and the recreation caveat. It does not describe any downstream effect on related alerting/data beyond the budget card, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single budget_id parameter is documented as 'The budget to delete.' The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Delete one of the organisation's cost budgets') and immediately distinguishes the effect ('its card is no longer raised'), which separates it from the cost siblings set_cost_budget/get_cost_budgets. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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 a clear prerequisite ('Organisation admins only (billing.manage)') and routes the agent to get_cost_budgets first and to set_cost_budget for recreating. It stops short of stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it is clear context rather than full alternative disambiguation.

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