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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two facts beyond them: the blast radius ('cascades to all features in the network') and the authorization requirement (infrastructure_networks:write scope). It stops short of stating whether deletion is recoverable.

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, no filler, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the highest-risk consequence and the user-confirmation gate. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the cascade warning, confirmation instruction and scope requirement cover what an agent needs before calling it. Minor omissions are irreversibility/not-found behavior, which are not essential.

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% with a single uuid 'id' parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The phrase 'by ID' in the description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it; baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an infrastructure network') and constrains it to lookup 'by ID'. Among the enormous sibling delete_* set, the exact resource name makes it unambiguous versus delete_infrastructure_zone, delete_infrastructure_asset, etc.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition: confirm with the user before deleting because the operation cascades. It does not name alternatives (e.g., update_infrastructure_network or get_infrastructure_network for inspection first), but the confirmation prerequisite is explicit.

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