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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it does not say whether deletion is permanent, undoable, cascading, or how missing IDs are handled.

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?

The two-word sentence is not concise so much as under-specified—it lacks front-loaded scope or constraints. Brevity here reflects missing information rather than efficient phrasing.

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 mutation tool with a required array parameter and no output schema, the description is too thin: an agent cannot infer permanence, failure behavior, or scope of deletion. Annotations cover hints but the natural-language layer leaves meaningful gaps.

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% for the single parameter shape_ids, and the description does not compensate: it says nothing about the ID format, whether it accepts an array batch, or what happens to invalid/unknown IDs. This is well below the baseline that high schema coverage would provide.

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?

"Delete shapes" names a specific verb and resource, so the basic purpose is unambiguous. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name/title with no field, scope, or sibling differentiation—nothing distinguishes it from create_shapes, clip_shapes, or other shape-mutating siblings beyond the verb.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent gets no signal about whether shapes must be selected first, whether related operations (ungroup, detach_symbol) should precede deletion, or when to prefer other tools.

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