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

Although annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the side effect that a running design session reverts to no scenario, and it warns that the call may return needs_confirmation, implying a two-phase approval flow. It stops short of stating whether deletion is reversible or what happens to dependent data.

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 very short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and side effects following. The phrasing of the second sentence ('A design session running as it goes back to no scenario') is slightly awkward, but nothing is wasted.

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 whose annotations already carry the safety profile and whose schema fully documents parameters, this covers the essentials: what is deleted, its effect on running sessions, and the confirmation return. Missing only reversibility/dependency details, which are minor gaps.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, including approvalId's role in the confirmation flow. The description only loosely connects to those fields via 'needs_confirmation', so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Deletes one scenario"), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling create/update/list scenario tools. It does not explicitly name the alternatives, but the delete action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to delete versus update or reset a scenario, nor any prerequisites (e.g., required scope or workspace rules). The only contextual hint is the confirmation behavior, which is about execution mechanics rather than usage selection.

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