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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description still adds value by disclosing that pending checks using the deleted resource fail safely and that no check is started or credits consumed. It leaves out whether the delete is reversible or permanent, and what confirm_delete actually enforces.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and its precondition, then the valid kinds, then side effects. No filler or repeated annotation data.

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 three-required-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the precondition, the allowed kinds, and the failure/credit side effects. The remaining gap is post-delete behavior and confirm_delete semantics, which is modest given annotations already flag destructiveness and idempotency.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does document the two valid values for kind (quality_contract, quality_baseline) — the single most important fact, since the schema has no enum — but says nothing about resource_id's expected format or the semantics of confirm_delete.

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) and the exact resources affected (owned quality_contract or quality_baseline), and the 'Does not start a check or consume credits' clause separates it from start_quality_check. 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 concrete precondition — deletion only 'after explicit operator instruction' — which is real when-to-use guidance for a destructive tool. It does not name a non-destructive alternative (e.g. draft/get siblings) for inspecting before deleting, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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