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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered structurally; the description adds substantive context beyond that: it specifies that all versions are removed, that running stacks are unaffected, and that the action cannot be undone from chat (hinting at out-of-band recovery). It stops short of stating permission requirements or catalog-wide propagation.

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 short sentences, each carrying a distinct payload: what is deleted, what survives, and irreversibility. The destructive scope is front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description must cover outcomes, and it does for the two important ones (template gone, instances untouched). Annotations carry the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the profile must be unprotected first or what the response indicates.

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 schema already explains cluster_id discovery and the profile_id/profile_name alternation. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so 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 (Delete), resource (stack profile), and scope (all its versions from the organisation's catalog). An agent can distinguish this from sibling delete_stack (which removes instantiated stacks) without opening either 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?

It clearly describes the consequence for stacks already instantiated ('keep running - only the template is removed'), which is useful selection context, but it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer this over delete_stack / unprotect_stack / unpublish. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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