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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the required hypotize:delete scope at connection time, the editor/owner role requirement, and the exact failure mode (INSUFFICIENT_ROLE with required_roles) for contributors/viewers.

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, with the destructive nature and the hard prerequisites front-loaded before the error detail. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 destructive two-parameter delete, the description covers permanence, auth scope, role gate, and error behavior, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is the idempotency_key contract (retry/replay semantics) and whether deletion cascades to dependent records.

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 0% for two required parameters, and the description explains neither. experiment_id is self-evident, but idempotency_key carries real semantic weight (replay/retry behavior for a destructive call) that is documented nowhere in the schema or the description, so the gap is not compensated.

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 and resource ('Permanently delete an experiment') and the permanence qualifier immediately rules out reversible alternatives like update or transition in the sibling set. An agent can distinguish it from hypotize_experiment_update or hypotize_experiment_transition without opening any schema.

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 states prerequisites (scope and role) but never says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as archiving, transitioning, or updating an experiment. Usage is implied by the delete semantics rather than explicitly framed.

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