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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond them: the asset's net book value and remaining life revert to what they were without the betterment, and the required write scope is named. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure that helps an agent predict consequences.

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 action and followed by the consequence and permission requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant phrasing.

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 simple one-parameter delete tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, side effect, and authorization requirement. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, with the single id parameter documented as 'Betterment ID'. The description adds no additional format or constraint meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is 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?

The description states a specific verb (Delete) and resource (betterment) scoped by ID, and the resource name distinguishes it from sibling delete tools such as delete_asset or delete_asset_comment. An agent can identify exactly what this tool operates on 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?

Usage is implied by the action and resource, and the required asset_betterments:write scope is stated as a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like update_asset_betterment, so it does not reach 4 or 5.

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