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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the side effect that projections recompute immediately, and the required infrastructure_lifecycle_events:write scope. Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description enriches it with downstream impact and auth requirements.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the caveat and the permission note.

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-param destructive delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, alternative, side effects, and authorization. Only marginal gaps remain, such as whether deletion is reversible or cascades to dependent records.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents the UUID format and meaning. The description's 'by ID' adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 (Delete) plus the exact resource (lifecycle strategy event) and the lookup key (by ID). An agent can distinguish this immediately from update_infrastructure_lifecycle_event or get_infrastructure_lifecycle_event in the sibling list.

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 names an alternative course of action and the condition that selects it: 'consider update with is_active=false to disable instead'. This gives the agent a when-not-to-use path, not just a when-to-use path.

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