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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses the cascade behavior (linked offers are unlinked) and a non-obvious residual effect (already-issued codes remain valid at the merchant until expiry). That residual-state detail is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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, front-loading the action and its side effect before the guardrail and the residual-state caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the destructive scope and post-deletion state. It could still say whether the deletion is permanent or recoverable and whether any prerequisite confirmation step (cf. haggl_request_haggl_id_confirmation) is expected, so it is not quite exhaustive.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as "The user's haggl ID," so the description adds no new meaning, syntax, or format guidance. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter 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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (the user's haggl ID) and names the consequential side effect (unlinking linked offers). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling haggl_create_haggl_id and the offer-oriented tools without requiring the schema to be opened.

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?

"Only when the user asks" is an explicit gating condition for invocation, which is the key usage constraint for a destructive tool. It does not, however, name alternatives or explain what to do instead if the user merely wants to pause or disconnect offers, so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing rule.

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