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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: irreversibility, cascade deletion of all tasks inside the use case, and the PREPARING-state restriction. This exceeds what annotations alone 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 sentences, each earning its place: main action and scope, risk warning with precondition, and routing to the correct alternative. No redundancy or 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 single-parameter operation, the description covers what is deleted, the irreversible nature, the prerequisite verification step, the draft-state constraint, and the alternative tool. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and only a bare 'useCaseId' string property. The description compensates by instructing the agent to check that ID and its task list via get_ut before invoking, adding practical semantics to the single parameter.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Delete a use case from a draft UT') and adds scope ('including every task inside it'). It clearly differentiates from the sibling delete_task by name and semantic scope.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: prefer delete_task for single-task removal, verify the useCaseId and task list from get_ut before calling, and only call on PREPARING drafts. This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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