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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description strengthens that by stating the deletion is 'permanent' and disclosing the detach-then-delete side effect when force is used. This goes beyond the annotation by telling the agent how the tool behaves in the attached-agents scenario.

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?

Two short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the destructive core action, and the second handles the one important conditional case. No filler or irrelevant detail.

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 with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral points: permanence, attachment scenario, and use of force. Parameter details are fully covered in the schema, so no critical invocation information appears 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 schema already explains force behavior ('Detach from any agents first, then delete. Default false (fails if still attached).'). The description reinforces the force meaning but does not add substantial parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a vector store', which makes the action and object unambiguous. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like update_vector_store, attach_vector_store, and detach_vector_store, since those do not delete the store itself.

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 provides clear operational context: use force=true to detach-then-delete when the store is still attached to agents. It does not explicitly point to detach_vector_store for cases where the store itself should be kept, which would have made the guidance fully explicit, but the core when-to-use condition is well conveyed.

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