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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description goes beyond them usefully: it discloses the blocking precondition, that the refusal enumerates the offending resources, that the value is unrecoverable, and that secrets.manage (owner/admin) is required. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Three tight sentences ordered by importance: what it does, what blocks it, what is lost, and what permission is needed. No filler and no redundancy with the schema.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, the blocking condition and its diagnostic behavior, and authorization requirements. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 parameter already documents both accepted forms (plain name or ${SECRET_SLOT:<id>} sentinel). The description mentions the sentinel only incidentally, so the schema carries the parameter meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Delete') plus specific resource ('an organisation secret and its stored value'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like delete_application_env_secret, delete_credential, and rotate_secret. An agent can identify the target and effect immediately.

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 an explicit precondition (refused while any live resource still uses it) and the required remediation step (resources must stop using the sentinel first). It does not name the alternative action of rotating rather than deleting, so it stops short of full when-to-use routing.

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