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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses irreversibility, a permission rule that causes refusal in a specific context, and the recoverable alternative. It does not say whether related history/run logs are also destroyed or whether any confirmation step is required, so it falls short of a 5.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, who may trigger it, and what to do instead. Destructive semantics and the alternative are front-loaded with 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?

For a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, caller restriction, and the recommended alternative. The remaining gap is parameter-level: the unexplained 'agent' field and the absence of routine identifier format guidance.

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 0%, so the description must document both parameters. The '(list_routines)' hint implies where to obtain the routine identifier, but the required 'routine' parameter's accepted format is never stated, and the 'agent' parameter is entirely unaddressed in both schema and description.

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?

Specific verb (delete) plus resource (routines) with an explicit permanence qualifier ('for good'). It also distinguishes itself from the reversible sibling pause_routine, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

States a hard precondition ('Only when the user asked'), names the safer alternative (pause_routine, which 'can be undone'), and gives a concrete when-not case ('From an agent's own turn inside Caddie it's refused'). This is explicit when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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