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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the destructive nature. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., permanence, cascading effects, auth requirements). Since annotations carry the safety profile, the description's minimalism is acceptable, though it could note irreversibility.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words. The action verb 'Delete' is front-loaded, making the purpose immediately obvious. This is appropriately concise for a simple delete operation.

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 one-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description combined with annotations and schema covers the essentials: what is deleted, how to identify it, and that it is destructive. It might benefit from stating the action is permanent, but the destructiveHint annotation already signals this.

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%: harness_id is described as 'UUID of the harness to delete', so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The baseline 3 applies given full schema documentation.

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 states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'harness', making the action clear. It distinguishes from sibling operations like create_harness and update_harness by its destructive verb, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The phrase 'by ID' correctly indicates the selection method.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The intended usage is implied by the name and sibling context (e.g., delete when you want to remove a harness permanently), but there is no mention of prerequisites, confirmations, or scenarios where it should not be used.

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