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 safety profile is covered structurally. The description contributes the auth scope requirement, which is genuinely additive, but says nothing about irreversibility, cascading effects, or failure modes beyond what the annotations imply.

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, action and prerequisite front-loaded in order of importance, with zero filler.

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 destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, the description covers what it does, the key, and the required scope. Only minor gaps remain (irreversibility/confirmation behavior), and no output schema is needed for a delete.

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 with 100% schema coverage including a UUID format and pattern, so the schema fully documents it. The description's 'by ID' merely echoes the schema; no added format or source-of-ID guidance. 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 a change order') plus the lookup key ('by ID'), which cleanly separates it from update_change_order, get_change_order, and list_change_orders siblings. No explicit sibling naming, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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?

Adds one real usage constraint — 'Requires change_orders:write scope' — which tells the agent a prerequisite. There is no guidance on when to delete vs. update/archive, nor any warning about irreversibility or dependent records.

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