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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds genuinely new context beyond those flags: that compose jobs already run are unaffected because they snapshot. That is exactly the downstream-impact information an agent needs before deleting.

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?

Two short sentences, the destructive action front-loaded and the caveat immediately after. Nothing is wasted.

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 delete with no output schema, the annotations plus the snapshot caveat cover what an agent needs to call it safely. It could say more about irreversibility or permission requirements, but the essential information is present.

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% for the single briefId parameter, so the schema documents it fully. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, making the baseline of 3 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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a brief') clearly enough that an agent distinguishes it from get_brief, update_brief, or delete_composition. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the other delete_* siblings, but the resource noun carries the meaning.

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?

The second sentence describes side effects, not usage. There is no statement of when to delete vs. update or archive a brief, and no prerequisites or warnings about irreversibility.

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