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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known, yet the description adds genuinely new context: the exact cascade of what gets destroyed (screens and translations), that it is irreversible, and the auth/plan requirements. This is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive scope, then the irreversible warning, then prerequisites. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is destroyed, irreversibility, and required authorization/plan. Nothing material 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter (set_id, described as 'Screenshot set id.'), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no format, syntax, or ID-source guidance beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (delete) and resource (screenshot set) and immediately clarifies cascade scope ('everything in it (screens, translations)'), which distinguishes it from the sibling sonar_delete_screenshot that removes a single screenshot. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 usage context: confirm with the user before deleting work they may want, and states the plan/account prerequisites (Indie plan, authorized Sonar account or write-scope API key). It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools (e.g., update_screenshot_set or delete_screenshot), so it is a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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