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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key trait that deletion is recoverable via the table's History in Caddie, which is genuinely useful. But it omits whether unknown ids error or are silently skipped, whether partial deletion is possible, any cap on the id list, and what the call returns — gaps that matter for a destructive operation.

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 with the destructive action and its reversibility front-loaded, and no filler. Each sentence contributes a distinct fact (what, recoverability, permission gate).

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 3-param destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of intent and reversibility but leaves return behavior and edge-case handling unexplained. It is adequate rather than complete.

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 67%: table and workspace are already documented in-schema with cross-references to list_data_tables and list_workspaces. The description adds only "by id" on top, saying nothing about the format of ids, array size limits, or the consequence of a workspace/table mismatch. Baseline 3 fits given the schema does most of the work.

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 rows by id" states a specific verb and resource, and the id-based scope distinguishes it from add_rows/update_rows/upsert_rows by action. It is clear without the schema, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives.

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?

"Only delete when the user asked to" is a genuine invocation gate, so there is real guidance about when it is appropriate. However, there is no mention of when to prefer update_rows or how to handle a request to remove a subset of columns/values, leaving the alternative-selection reasoning implicit.

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