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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value on top: it says the call is synchronous, that account points go with the layer, that a derived visit layer is kept and reported, and that ambiguous labels yield AMBIGUOUS_POINT_LAYER with matching_point_layers. Minor tension with idempotentHint=false, since a repeat delete returns ok rather than an error, but no hard contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then scope, then error/edge behavior; every sentence carries distinct information with no filler. It is dense and packs several facts per sentence, which slightly taxes readability but does not waste space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; the description nonetheless covers the edge cases an agent needs (absent layer, ambiguous label, what survives the delete, prerequisite relationship with ingest_accounts). Nothing material for a correct invocation 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: point_layer is 'the layer id or its exact unique label' (explaining the ambiguity error path), and map_session_id vs ts_handle are presented as alternative context selectors. All three parameters gain meaning not present in the bare 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Point-layer delete: removes one point layer and its account points') and states the scope precisely ('from the Territory Solution and the open map'). It also scopes what is NOT touched (territories, part overlays, other point layers), making it easy to separate from delete_territory or ingest_accounts.

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?

Explicitly names a sibling and the condition that selects this tool: 'ingest_accounts does not replace an existing layer; delete it here first.' It also gives the failure/retry contract (already_absent=true on re-delete) and the alternate selector set (map_session_id or ts_handle).

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