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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one piece of genuinely useful context — the required 'los_measurements:write' scope — but says nothing about irreversibility, cascading effects on related LoS data, or failure modes.

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, zero filler, with the action and keying parameter front-loaded before the permission requirement. Every clause 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 mutation with rich annotations, no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description plus structured data give the agent nearly everything needed. Only edge-case behavior (what happens on a missing/invalid ID, whether related records are affected) is left unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema (uuid format, 'LoS measurement ID'). The description's 'by ID' merely restates the schema, adding no format or constraint details. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Delete a LoS measurement') with the keying parameter (ID). It is clear enough to distinguish from get_los_measurement or update_los_measurement, but it does nothing to differentiate from the closely named sibling delete_los_measure, which an agent could confuse with it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (delete_los_measure, update_los_measurement) or on prerequisites such as confirming the measurement exists. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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