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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that deletion is refused with an error if the role is still assigned to an active access_key, and that an admin owner_key is required. This gives the agent critical failure and auth context. It does not disclose other side effects, but for a delete operation, this is reasonably complete.

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?

The description is two sentences, highly concise, with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the key failure condition and auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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 simple delete tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: what it does, when it fails, and the authentication requirement. It does not describe the success response or return value, but that is not critical for a delete operation. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and both parameters (id and owner_key) are already described in the schema with clear semantics. The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. The mention of owner_key requirement is redundant with 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?

The description begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a role.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_role, update_role, and list_roles by stating the exact action. The added condition about refusal when assigned to an active access_key further clarifies the tool's specific behavior.

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 implies usage (to delete a role) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide guidance on when not to use it. It mentions a limitation (refusal if assigned to active access_key) but this is a behavioral constraint, not a usage guideline. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when...' guidance.

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