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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds non-obvious consequences: existing evals retain a snapshot and keep running, while nothing new can bind to the rubric. It also discloses the needs_confirmation response state. It stops short of permissions or irreversibility, so not a 5.

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, front-loaded sentences; the primary action comes first, followed by blast-radius and confirmation flow. 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 things an agent needs: what is deleted, what survives, and the confirmation path. Missing only auth/permission caveats and reversibility, which are minor given the annotations.

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% with clear descriptions for rubricId, workspace, and approvalId, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The 'needs_confirmation' mention loosely ties to approvalId but adds no syntax or format detail 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 ('Deletes') and resource ('a rubric'), which cleanly disambiguates it from caliper_rubrics_create/update/get/list. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Usage is implied by the required rubricId (from caliper_rubrics_list) and the destructive verb, and the needs_confirmation note hints at the confirmation workflow. However, it never states when to delete versus update/retire a rubric, or any preconditions.

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