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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the danger profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of behavioral context beyond annotations: the required 'infrastructure_zones:write' OAuth scope. It does not say whether deletion cascades to dependent assets or 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?

Two short sentences, action front-loaded, no filler. Nothing to trim.

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 one-parameter delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the key, and the auth scope. A note on cascade/reversibility would close the last gap, but the destructive/idempotent hints already carry most of that signal.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'id' as a UUID zone identifier. 'By ID' in the description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 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 zone') and scopes it 'by ID', which is enough to distinguish it from the many sibling deletes (delete_infrastructure_network, delete_infrastructure_asset). It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings or clarify what a zone is relative to them.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond a scope name, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the removal path for zones.

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