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 two things beyond the structured data: that the deletion is a soft delete (i.e., not an immediate hard purge, qualifying the destructive hint) and the exact scope required (infrastructure_asset_inspections:write). It stops short of saying whether the record can be restored or whether dependent records are affected.

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: one states the action and mechanism, the other states the prerequisite. Front-loading the action makes it scannable.

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 mutation with no output schema and annotations that already carry the safety profile, the description supplies the two facts an agent most needs: it is a soft delete and requires write scope. The only mild gap is whether the soft-deleted inspection is recoverable or how it surfaces in later list calls.

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?

There is a single parameter whose schema description coverage is 100% ('Inspection ID', uuid format), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. 'By ID' in the description merely restates the schema and adds no format, source, or constraint detail; 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 names a specific verb, mechanism, and resource: 'Soft-delete an infrastructure asset inspection by ID.' That cleanly separates it from the many sibling delete_* tools (e.g., delete_infrastructure_asset, delete_infrastructure_asset_document), and it also tells the agent the delete is a soft-delete, which is purpose-relevant, not decoration.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation and resource; there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over update_infrastructure_asset_inspection or the other delete siblings, and no when-not-to-use conditions. The required scope is stated, but that is authorization context rather than selection guidance.

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