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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds information annotations cannot convey: the delete cascades to all features in the network, and the call requires the infrastructure_networks:write scope. Cascade scope and authorization requirements are precisely the kind of behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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, then the cascade warning, then the authorization requirement. Every sentence contributes distinct information and none is redundant.

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 description covers the target, the destructive blast radius, the user-confirmation workflow, and the required scope. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this safely 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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage (uuid-formatted 'Infrastructure network ID'), so the schema carries the semantics. 'By ID' in the description confirms the identifier is a network ID rather than a name, but adds nothing beyond the schema; baseline 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 an infrastructure network by ID'), so an agent knows exactly what object is targeted. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from neighboring deletes such as delete_infrastructure_asset, delete_infrastructure_zone, or delete_infrastructure_feature_class, so it stops short of the sibling-disambiguation bar.

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 concrete operational instruction: confirm with the user before deleting, which is exactly the right precondition for a cascading destructive operation. It does not name any alternatives or say when this tool should be chosen over, say, updating or archiving the network instead, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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