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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, yet the description goes further: it names what survives (~/drive), what is destroyed (all other files), the billing consequence, the observable confirmation path via get_mac_session, and that the action is irreversible. That is substantive context beyond the structured hints.

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 dense sentence chain that front-loads the destructive action and then layers consequences in order of importance. No filler, no restatement of the title or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return signal (get_mac_session showing cleanup_confirmed), plus destruction scope, preserved data, billing effect, and irreversibility. An agent has everything needed to invoke this safely without further exploration.

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% and the single optional session_id is fully documented in the schema, so the description adds nothing about parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 pair and resource ('Stops a Mac and deletes it'), immediately distinguishing it from start_mac, exec_mac, and the read-oriented get_mac_* siblings. The scope of destruction is defined inline, so an agent knows exactly what operation this is.

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?

The description implies the terminal use case (irreversible teardown) but never states when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it name a sibling tool for a softer stop. Context is clear but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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