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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: immediate projection recomputation and the required write scope. It does not speculate on reversibility or cascading effects, but the added information is meaningful.

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 tightly written sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, followed by a noteworthy side effect and alternative, then a required scope. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter delete operation with annotations that cover safety hints and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, an alternative, a side effect, and the required scope. Nothing critical 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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter (100% coverage). The description only repeats 'by ID' with no additional syntax, format, or semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (delete) and resource (facility lifecycle strategy event) with the key identifier (by ID). Distinguishes from most siblings by resource name, but does not explicitly differentiate from delete_infrastructure_lifecycle_event or similar deletion tools, and the terminology 'facility lifecycle strategy event' differs slightly from the tool name's 'asset lifecycle event'.

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?

Provides a clear alternative: 'consider update with is_active=false to disable instead' and states a prerequisite ('Requires asset_lifecycle_events:write scope'). It does not explicitly state when deletion is preferred over updating, but the context is strong enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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