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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail—'Creates a Saved Version before the change'—which agents need to understand the tool's safety net. This goes beyond the annotations and is precise.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and adds one crucial behavioral note. No wasted words or repetition of schema information.

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 simple destructive tool with two well-documented required parameters, the description covers purpose, side effects, and scope. It doesn't detail return values or error behavior, but with no output schema and straightforward parameters, nothing critical is missing. An agent can safely invoke it with the given info.

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 100%, so both parameters (app_id and test_id) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Delete') on a specific resource ('a native A/B test from an app') and mentions a side effect ('Creates a Saved Version'). This differentiates it from siblings like update_ab_test or create_ab_test, even without reading their schemas.

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 purpose implies when to use it (to delete an A/B test), but the description does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_ab_test or note conditions where deletion might be inappropriate. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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