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 the critical detail that associated measurements and targets history are also deleted, and the required los_measures:write scope. This is exactly the behavioral context beyond annotations that an agent needs.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the warning, then the prerequisite. Every sentence carries weight.

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?

Complete for a single-param destructive tool. Annotations cover safety, schema covers the parameter, and the description adds the non-obvious cascade and auth requirements.

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% (the id field is documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format details beyond confirming it is an 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?

Specific verb (Delete) plus specific resource (LoS measure) plus identifying key (by ID). Distinguishable from siblings like delete_los_measurement or delete_los_consequence.

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 cascade warning implicitly signals the destructiveness that determines when to use it, and the scope requirement signals prerequisites. No explicit alternative or exclusion is named, but the context is clear for a delete-by-id tool.

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