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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a useful behavioral detail not in the annotations: the required infrastructure_zones:write scope. It does not describe cascading effects or what exactly is removed, but the annotation coverage reduces the burden.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The operation is front-loaded, and the scope requirement is stated directly afterward.

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 simple one-parameter delete tool with rich annotations and complete schema coverage, the description provides the essential purpose and auth requirement. It does not explain deletion consequences or alternatives, but those gaps are small given the annotation and schema support.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Zone ID' with UUID format and pattern. The description's 'by ID' repeats the schema rather than adding syntax or selection guidance beyond it.

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 zone by ID. The resource name matches the tool name and distinguishes it from sibling delete_infrastructure_* tools for assets, networks, feature classes, 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?

The requirement to have infrastructure_zones:write scope gives a prerequisite, and 'by ID' implies the usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or whether a confirmation step is expected.

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