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

Beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses concrete side effects ('Networks of that class stop being scored on the metric') and what is preserved ('past status snapshots are kept'), plus the required authorization scope (los_targets:write). This is exactly the added behavioral context the annotations cannot convey.

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 action, followed by consequences and authorization. Each sentence adds distinct value with no filler or redundancy.

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, the description covers purpose, side effects, data retention, and auth requirements, while the annotations cover the safety profile. No output schema is needed, and an agent has everything required to invoke it 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?

The single id parameter has 100% schema coverage with a UUID format description, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's 'by ID' adds no format, validation, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete an infrastructure LoS target') with the identifier method ('by ID'). The 'infrastructure' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling delete_system_los_target and the many other delete_* tools.

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 only implied by the delete verb and the requirement to have an ID; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., update_infrastructure_los_target). The write-scope prerequisite is stated, which is useful, but no selection guidance is provided.

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