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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real piece of context not present in structured data: the required 'infrastructure_asset_costs:write' scope, which tells the agent about an auth prerequisite before calling. It stops short of describing cascade effects or irreversibility details, keeping it below a 5.

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, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the scope requirement trailing. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema and annotations that already convey the destructive/idempotent nature, the description supplies all the essentials: target, key, and required scope. It is slightly thin on post-deletion behavior, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 required 'id' parameter is documented as a UUID 'Cost ID' in the schema itself. The description's 'by ID' adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 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 an infrastructure asset cost') plus the lookup key ('by ID'), so the agent knows exactly what object is targeted. The resource noun is precise enough to separate it from sibling deletes like delete_infrastructure_asset or delete_asset_cost, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative tools for removal/archival. The only usable cue is the implied framing of a delete-by-identifier operation, which is essentially restated by the name.

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