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

The destructive annotation is already present, and the description adds important context: deletion is permanent, it requires the current revision, and suites with run history must not use this path. This adds real behavioral substance beyond the structured annotations.

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 carrying necessary information, with the destructive precondition and alternative path front-loaded. 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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the key preconditions and the alternative path well. It does not mention the optional organization_id behavior, but the schema already documents that parameter.

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 low at 25%, and the description only clarifies that the revision must be current. It does not explain agent_id or suite_id, though those are fairly self-evident from the resource and required fields.

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 a specific verb and resource: permanently delete a simulation suite. It also scopes the action to suites that have never had a run, distinguishing it from archival or general suite operations.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition (suite has never had a run) and a when-not-to-use condition (suites with run history must be archived through the suite API instead). This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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