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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description still adds real value beyond them: it explains the guardrail against full-table deletes and discloses the return value (count of deleted rows), though it omits whether the delete is reversible and what happens when zero rows match.

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: the action, the safety constraint, and the return value. The core action is front-loaded and there is no 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?

For a two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition covers action, precondition, and return value. The only gaps are edge-case behavior (zero matches, reversibility, row-count limits), which are minor for a tool this simple.

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 itself documents the JSON filter-array syntax and the tableId. The description only restates that filters are required, adding no new meaning about operators, supported columns, or filter semantics beyond the structured field.

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?

"Delete rows from a data table that match the given filters" gives a specific verb (delete), resource (table rows), and scope (filter-matched subset). It is clearly distinct from siblings like table_update, table_query, and table_insert, though it never names an alternative 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?

The description states a hard precondition (filters are required, no full-table deletes) which implies when this tool applies, but it gives no guidance on choosing between this and siblings such as table_update or table_sql_execute, and no advice on previewing with table_query before deleting.

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