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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description nonetheless adds real value by naming what is destroyed (ratings, documents) and what survives (expenses), plus a confirmation requirement. Return shape and irreversibility of the deleted data are the main gaps.

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, front-loaded with the destructive scope, then the safer alternative, then the confirmation step. No filler and nothing buried.

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 one-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, this covers everything an agent needs: trigger, cascading effects, preserved data, a safer alternative, and a confirmation requirement.

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 single 'id' parameter already documents that it comes from list-vendors, so the description adds no parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden.

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 ('Deletes a vendor') and immediately scopes the effect: ratings and documents (quotes, contracts) go too, while expenses stay in the budget. That cascade detail lets an agent distinguish it from the adjacent delete tools without opening any 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 an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: 'To drop a vendor from the comparison, prefer update-vendor with status rejected.' It also adds a procedural precondition, 'Confirm with the user first,' so the agent knows this is not a fire-and-forget call.

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