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

The annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely new information the annotations don't carry: the required buildings:write authorization scope. That is exactly the kind of behavioral context a description should contribute.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed immediately by the authorization requirement. Zero filler and nothing is 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 single-parameter deletion tool with no output schema, the definition covers the action, the identifier, and the required scope. It stops short of noting irreversibility or dependent records (e.g. floorplans/assets tied to the building), which would help an agent reason about consequences before calling.

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?

Only one parameter (id) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it as a UUID-format Building ID. The description's 'by ID' restates rather than extends that, so 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) and resource (a building) with the keying field ('by ID'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from create_building or update_building. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-neighbours like delete_building_type or delete_project_building, which also begin with 'delete_building'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than update_building, delete_project_building, or list_buildings, and no prerequisites or warnings about irreversibility are given in prose. The only implied usage cue is the 'by ID' phrasing. This is bare context with no alternatives offered.

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