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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-annotation behavior: permanent row removal, a refusal condition involving views, and the force override. It stops short of describing the changelog side effect of the reason parameter, but for a destructive tool this is strong disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the destructive action, then the refusal/override condition, then the usage constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema and complete parameter coverage in the schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context an agent needs: permanence, view-dependency refusal, force override, and a user-consent condition. It could mention logging to the changelog, but the essential call-safety profile is complete.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description clarifies force semantics and the reason requirement but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 (deletes) and resource (dataset) with the scope of destruction ('and all its rows') made explicit in the first sentence. Screenshot siblings like delete_rows and delete_view are distinguishable because the resource is named precisely.

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?

Provides an explicit precondition ('Refuses if any view still reads it, unless force=true') and a usage boundary ('Only do this when the user asked for it'). It does not name an alternative tool for softer deletion, but the conditionality of the force path is well covered.

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