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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two important traits: the operation is irreversible ('Permanently') and it cascades to the kept schema. However, it says nothing about authorization needs (ownerToken vs connected account), failure modes, or what the call returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The most decision-relevant word, 'Permanently', appears first.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core effect and collateral deletion but omits the return behavior and permission context. It is adequate but leaves gaps an agent would notice when handling results or auth.

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 slug and ownerToken both documented, including the conditional note that ownerToken is not needed with an API-token connection. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a mock') plus a scope detail ('and its kept schema'), which clearly separates it from create_mock, get_mock, and list_mocks. It does not explicitly name a sibling it must not be confused with, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 choose this over alternatives such as clear_requests, reset_state, or regenerate_mock, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. The only usage signal is the adverb 'Permanently', which implies cleanup/removal but leaves the agent to infer it.

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