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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds non-obvious consequence detail beyond them: strategies and their results are retained, and the operation requires an explicit confirm gate plus user confirmation. This is exactly the kind of blast-radius context annotations cannot convey.

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, front-loaded with the action and its scope, then the safety prerequisite. 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?

No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers destruction scope and the confirmation requirement; only the `id` parameter's expected form and whether the deletion is reversible are left unaddressed.

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 0%, so the schema documents neither parameter. The description clarifies `confirm` (must be true, ask the user first), which is the less obvious of the two, but leaves `id` entirely undocumented in both places. With only half the parameters covered, this lands at baseline.

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 (portfolio), and immediately scopes the effect by noting strategies and their results are kept, which distinguishes it from the sibling delete_strategy. An agent can tell exactly what this removes and what survives 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 one firm precondition ('confirm' must be true: ask the user first) which is real guidance, but never names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition. Usage is implied by the confirm gate rather than by explicit routing against siblings like delete_strategy.

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