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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further by disclosing the consequence ('mention history is orphaned') and the non-obvious side effect that the discovery pipeline may re-suggest the brand later. It also states an authorization-style constraint (own brand cannot be deleted) that annotations do not cover.

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 tight sentences arranged in priority order: what it does, why to avoid it, who cannot use it, and the required flag. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers permanence, orphaned data, re-detection risk, the safer alternative route, an eligibility restriction, and the required confirmation flag. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this destructively and correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already documents id, confirm, and workspaceId (including where to get workspace IDs), so the baseline is 3. The description adds real constraint semantics beyond the schema for the id parameter: the own brand cannot be deleted, which narrows valid values in a way the schema does not.

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 delete a competitor brand') with an explicit scope qualifier ('competitor') that separates it from update_brand and the other brand-management 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 an explicit alternative and the condition selecting it ('prefer update_brand with status "hidden" ("Not tracking"), which keeps the row and blocks re-detection'), plus two hard preconditions: the own brand cannot be deleted, and confirm: true is required. This is textbook when/when-not guidance.

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