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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the non-obvious behavior that the call is blocked by dependent views and that force overrides that block. It does not discuss permissions or whether any undo/recovery path exists, which would round it out.

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, zero filler, with the destructive permanence front-loaded ahead of the guard condition and the user-confirmation gate. Every sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers the essentials: irreversibility, cascade to rows, the view-dependency guard, and the force escape hatch. Minor gap is the absence of any note on required authorization level or post-delete state.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds the causal relationship for force (it is only meaningful when a view still reads the dataset) that the schema's per-parameter text does not spell out. The reason parameter's changelog role is left to the schema.

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 and resource ("Permanently deletes a dataset") plus the cascade scope ("and all its rows"), which cleanly separates it from delete_rows and delete_view among the siblings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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 explicit conditions: refuses when views still read the dataset unless force=true, and a clear gate ("Only do this when the user asked for it"). It stops short of naming the alternative sibling tools (e.g. delete_rows) that an agent might reach for instead, so routing is implied rather than enumerated.

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