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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known, yet the description still adds the irreversibility detail ('analytics are wiped and cannot be recovered') and the human-in-the-loop confirmation requirement. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The destructive scope is front-loaded in caps, followed immediately by the safer alternative and the gating requirement.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, that it is unrecoverable, the reversible alternative, and the confirmation gate. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic weight for confirm — it must be true and only after informing the user — which the schema only states as 'Must be true'. The id/workspaceId parameters gain nothing extra beyond 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 (delete) and resource (prompt) plus the full blast radius ('all of its tracking history'). It also names the sibling it must not be confused with, update_prompt, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

Explicit when-not: prefer update_prompt with status "paused" for reversible tracking stop. It also states a precondition for use ('confirm: true, to be set only after informing the user'), which is actionable sequencing guidance rather than vague context.

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