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

Annotations already signal destructive=true and idempotent=true; the description adds the non-obvious domain constraints (builtin immutability, FK protection from network references) and the required infrastructure_feature_classes:write scope, which an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 core operation and followed by restrictions and auth requirement in decreasing order of importance. 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 no-output-schema, single-parameter delete tool, the description covers the operation, the two blocking conditions, and the required scope — everything an agent needs to decide and invoke correctly.

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 'code' parameter is fully documented in the schema (pattern, length, format). The description's 'by code' phrasing adds no detail beyond what the schema already 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 tenant-defined infrastructure feature class by code') and scopes it to tenant-defined classes, cleanly distinguishing it from siblings like delete_infrastructure_network or update_infrastructure_feature_class.

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?

Explicitly states when deletion is not allowed: builtin classes and classes referenced by any infrastructure network. That is actionable pre-call guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative operation (e.g., reassign networks first, then delete), but the failure conditions are clear.

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