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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real substance: files are removed, running work is stopped, public routes are dropped, the action is irreversible, and it returns name/provider/state=deleted. These are consequences an agent cannot read off the annotations.

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 doing distinct work: effect, warning, return value. The destructive consequence is front-loaded where it matters most.

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 full annotation coverage and an output schema, this covers everything an agent needs: what is destroyed, irreversibility, and what the call returns.

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% and the single 'name' parameter is already documented with accepted formats (id or display name). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a Celesto Cloud computer and its files') plus the collateral effects (stops running work, removes public routes). The word 'permanently' cleanly separates it from the reversible cloud_computer_stop sibling.

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 clear usage context: it is irreversible and the agent should copy out data beforehand. It does not explicitly name cloud_computer_stop as the alternative for temporary shutdown, so the when-not comparison must be inferred.

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