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 genuinely useful context beyond that: exactly what is destroyed (the per-issue agents/baseBranch override) and the post-condition state (mission resolves from ship.yml again).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the destructive action leads and the consequence follows. Nothing to trim.

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?

Two required params, no output schema, and annotations that cover safety, so the description's remaining job is explaining the effect — which it does. It could be slightly stronger by noting the override must already exist or how to inspect it via get_agents_override first.

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%, so issueId and projectId are fully documented in the schema, including the Linear/GitHub id format. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the word 'per-issue', so the baseline 3 for schema-complete tools 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?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('per-issue agents/baseBranch override') and adds the resulting effect ('the mission resolves from ship.yml again'). An agent can distinguish it from set_agents_override by the delete semantics, though the sibling tools are never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: the description says the override is removed and the mission falls back to ship.yml, which conveys the intent of reverting to config-driven behavior. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to get_agents_override/set_agents_override as alternatives.

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