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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it enumerates exactly what is cascaded away (activities, runs, candidates, feedback) and confirms the operation is scoped to the authenticated customer.

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, front-loaded with the permanent-delete action and cascade, then irreversibility, then scope. No filler sentences.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers action, cascade blast radius, irreversibility, and tenancy scope, and the required confirm flag is fully explained in the schema. Nothing an agent needs before invoking is missing.

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 processId, confirm, and customerId are already documented. The description adds only a mild scoping hint (authenticated customer) that loosely relates to customerId, but no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb (permanently delete) and resource (an optimization process plus its cascading records), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling stop_optimization and the other delete_* tools aimed at agents, runs, users, and webhooks.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing: use this when the process and all its records must be removed for good, versus stopping it. However, the alternative sibling stop_optimization is never named or contrasted, so an agent must infer the choice between pausing and destroying.

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