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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description is not required to establish that this mutates — yet it adds substantial non-redundant context: permanence ('for good'), ownership preconditions, the required credential scope ('Last Price credential with function publish scope'), and a concrete failure mode (403 on a sandbox key from self-registration until the workspace is claimed). That is exactly the beyond-annotation detail an agent needs before invoking an irreversible operation.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its permanence, then constraints, then the alternative, then prerequisites. No sentence is filler; each carries a distinct operational fact.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers everything that could block a correct call: ownership limits, credential scope, the 403 sandbox-claim trap, and the reversible alternative. Nothing material 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (UUID, from list_functions). The description never mentions function_id but does imply the ownership constraint that governs which ids are valid, which is marginal added value. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (delete a pricing function) plus a scope qualifier ('your workspace owns, for good'). It explicitly carves out what it is not (built-in functions, other workspaces' functions) and names update_function as the non-destructive path, so it is distinguishable from all nearby siblings 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?

Gives when-to-use (permanent removal), an explicit when-not (built-in or foreign-owned functions cannot be deleted), and a named alternative with the exact mechanism ('set its status to inactive with update_function'). The exclusion and alternative are stated, not inferred.

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