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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds genuine context beyond them: the downstream effect that networks of that class stop being scored, the retention guarantee that past status snapshots survive, and the required los_targets:write scope. These are exactly the facts an agent needs before an irreversible-feeling delete.

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 and identifier, then effect, then auth requirement. No filler; every clause conveys a distinct operational fact.

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 whose annotations already flag destructiveness and idempotency, the description supplies the cascade effect, data retention, and scope requirement. With no output schema and complete param coverage, nothing material 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics and the 3 baseline applies. 'By ID' restates rather than enriches the schema's 'Infrastructure LoS target ID'.

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') and a precisely named resource ('infrastructure LoS target') qualified by 'by ID'. Against a sibling set full of create_/update_/get_/list_ infrastructure LoS target tools, the operation is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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 explicit 'by ID' anchor and the described consequence, but there is no stated when-to-use vs when-not, no reference to update_infrastructure_los_target as a softer alternative, and no prerequisites for deletion callers.

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