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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the cascade ('untrack its apps'), the required plan tier, and the auth/scope requirement. That is exactly the extra context an agent needs before invoking a destructive write.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the 'WRITE tool' signal so the agent sees the mutation nature immediately. 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?

One required parameter fully described, annotations covering safety/idempotency, and the description supplying cascade behavior, plan, and auth requirements. No output schema exists, so return-format documentation is not needed.

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 product_id parameter is fully documented, including that it is the UUID returned by sonar_list_products/sonar_create_product. The description adds no further parameter detail, 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 product') plus the scope ('in the caller's Sonar workspace') and an important secondary effect ('untrack its apps'). Unambiguous against siblings like sonar_delete_alert or sonar_delete_screenshot because the resource is named.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: an Indie plan and either an authorized Sonar account or an API key with write scope. It does not name alternatives or state when-not to use it (e.g. use sonar_untrack_app to remove only apps), so it falls 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.