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. The description adds real value beyond the annotations by disclosing the required authorization scope ('cost_categories:write'), which is not present in the structured fields. It stops short of noting side effects such as what happens to items referencing the deleted category.

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, with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite second. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what is missing: the required scope, the identifier-based targeting, and the destructive nature implied by the verb. Only the absence of side-effect/cleanup context keeps it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as a UUID with a pattern, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's 'by ID' simply restates that, adding no format or usage detail beyond the schema. 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a cost category') and names the identifier used ('by ID'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the many sibling delete_* tools. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_cost_category, but the name and phrasing make the operation 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., update_cost_category if the goal is to modify rather than remove, or list_cost_categories to find IDs). The only implied usage is that a valid ID and write scope are needed, which is sparse for a destructive operation.

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