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 goes further by disclosing the non-obvious effect (restoring the built-in default, with the concrete per-tier values) and the los_targets:write scope requirement, which are useful behavioral facts not in the structured fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the key action first, followed by the consequential side effect and auth requirement. No filler; the parenthetical default values earn their place by making the restore outcome concrete.

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 one-parameter delete tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies auth scope and the resulting state change. Return-value behavior is unspecified, but with no output schema that is not required.

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 there is a single 'id' parameter already documented as a UUID in the schema. The description only echoes 'by ID' without adding format or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 criticality modifier override by ID') and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create/update/get/list_criticality_modifier. It also names the resource being operated on precisely, so an agent can identify the tool 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?

The description clarifies the 'by ID' nature of the call and what deletion accomplishes, giving implied usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this over update_criticality_modifier or any exclusions, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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