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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that deletion cascades to regions and asset placements, that the PDF is deliberately left in storage, and that floorplans:write scope is required. Annotations only say destructive/idempotent; the description explains the actual blast radius and an auth prerequisite.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the destructive warning before the caveats, and every sentence carries distinct information (action, cascade, storage, scope). No 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 annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: consequence scope, what is not deleted, and the required permission.

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) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format or lookup guidance beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline case.

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 floorplan'), which cleanly separates it from update_floorplan and delete_floorplan_region. It does not explicitly name the nearby siblings, but the scope of what is removed (the floor and its cascades) 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?

Gives clear operational context: warns before use that regions and placements cascade, and steers the agent to a separate action for the underlying PDF 'if no other floors reference it'. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, so it is not a full when/when-not routing statement.

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