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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does most of it well: it discloses the cascade (stream_runs and auto-collection are removed), the preservation behavior (posts kept, stream_id set to NULL via ON DELETE SET NULL), and a hard restriction on own_profile streams. It omits whether the deletion is permanent/irreversible or what confirmation the call returns, which prevents 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 sentences, each carrying distinct information — action, data-preservation semantics, and the own_profile exclusion — with the core action front-loaded. 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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the consequential unknowns an agent needs: what is destroyed, what survives, and what is off-limits. Only the irreversibility/response expectation is left unstated.

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 single parameter already documents 'Stream ID from list_streams'. The description adds no extra syntax or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Delete a stream') and immediately scopes it to the stream and its stream_runs. It also distinguishes itself from stream-management siblings by ruling out own_profile streams, so an agent knows exactly what this operation targets.

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?

Explicitly names the case where this tool must not be used ('own_profile streams cannot be deleted through this tool') and routes that case to Settings/billing. It lacks a mention of alternatives for ordinary streams (e.g., pause_stream when removal isn't intended), which keeps it short of a 5.

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