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 two facts they cannot express: the side effect that 'projections recompute immediately' and the required authorization scope (asset_lifecycle_events:write). These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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 clauses, each carrying distinct load-bearing information (what it does, the safer alternative, the required scope), with the destructive action stated first. No waste.

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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: target identification, the safer alternative, the downstream projection effect, and the required scope.

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 parameter's type, UUID format, and description are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by ID' adds no 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 (Delete), a precise resource (asset lifecycle event), and the lookup key ('by ID'). An agent can distinguish this from update_asset_lifecycle_event and delete_infrastructure_lifecycle_event 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?

Explicitly names the alternative behavior ('consider update with is_active=false to disable instead') and the condition under which it is preferable, effectively telling the agent when NOT to delete. This is a genuine routing rule, not implied usage.

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