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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful fact beyond them, the required asset_costs:write scope, but says nothing about permanence, cascading effects on related cost records, or failure behavior for unknown IDs.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite trailing. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 delete with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and the auth requirement, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It stops short of covering irreversibility or side effects, which is a minor gap given the annotation set.

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 is fully documented (uuid format, pattern, description) in the schema. The description's "by ID" adds no syntax or meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Delete an asset cost entry") plus the identifier used for lookup, so the action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling delete_infrastructure_asset_cost, leaving the agent to infer which entity type applies.

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?

The only guidance is the required scope (asset_costs:write). There is no statement of when to use this versus update_asset_cost, delete_infrastructure_asset_cost, or delete_expense, and no warning that the operation is irreversible.

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