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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the operation is a soft delete, editor permission is required, no LLM call is made, and the tool cannot restore or permanently delete. This gives an agent an accurate model of side effects even though destructiveHint is present.

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, each earning its place: the operation and target, the requirements and constraints, and the return behavior. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant filler.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It covers what the tool does, under what permissions, what side effects it has, and what it will not do. No important operational detail an agent needs before calling it 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% since schema_id is documented as 'UUID of the schema to delete.' The tool description repeats that the operation targets a saved schema by UUID but adds no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 opens with a specific verb plus resource: 'Soft-delete a saved schema by UUID.' It adds the soft-delete nuance, which distinguishes it from permanent deletion and from sibling tools that delete other resource types. The phrase 'Returns the deletion outcome' completes the picture without ambiguity.

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 gives clear conditions of use: it requires editor permissions, it is not an LLM call, and it only supports soft deletion. It explicitly states that restoration and permanent deletion are not available through this tool and belong to the web app, which is a useful when-not. It does not name a specific sibling tool as an alternative, but for a schema delete operation that is not necessary.

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