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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It confirms that the tool deletes both the scenario and its stored results (specifying the destructive scope), notes that it requires ownership and a plan with benchmarks, clarifies that no LLM call is involved, and advises inspecting the scenario before deletion. These details enrich the understanding of side effects and prerequisites, and they do not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint true, idempotentHint true).

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Delete a benchmark scenario and its stored results') followed by essential usage and safety notes. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema present, annotations covering destructive and idempotent nature), the description covers all critical aspects: what is deleted, required ownership/plan, absence of LLM call, and a safety caution. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter scenario_id, already documenting it as the UUID of the scenario to delete. The description does not add parameter-specific information beyond that, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra semantic value.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'benchmark scenario and its stored results', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_benchmark_scenario or update_benchmark_scenario. The phrase 'and its stored results' adds clarity about the full scope of the operation.

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 description provides practical usage context by specifying prerequisites ('Requires owner and a plan with benchmarks') and a caution ('inspect the scenario before deleting it'). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, the purpose is self-evident for a delete operation, and the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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