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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety bar is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating exactly which collateral data is destroyed and asserting irreversibility, though it omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit or failed-deletion behavior.

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, the destructive scope is front-loaded, and every clause carries information an agent needs (what is deleted, reversibility, tenancy scope). No padding or restatement of the tool title.

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?

There is no output schema, but for a delete tool the annotations supply the safety profile and the description supplies the cascade and tenancy scope, which is close to what an agent needs. It stops short of covering permission prerequisites or failure modes, leaving a small 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%, so agentId, confirm, and customerId are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's 'Scoped to the authenticated customer' lightly reinforces the customerId semantics but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 resource (agent), and unlike the bare name it enumerates the cascade: runs, run insights, prompt insights, prompt metrics. This clearly distinguishes it from delete_run, delete_user, and delete_webhook without opening any 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?

Conveys when the operation applies through scope ('Scoped to the authenticated customer') and the superadmin-only customerId note, but never states when not to use it or points to a safer alternative sibling. Usage is implied by the destructive/irreversible framing rather than stated.

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