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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required write scope, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permanence, reversibility, or side effects on linked assets.

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; the destructive action and its target are front-loaded and the scope requirement follows immediately. No wasted words.

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 deletion whose annotations carry the safety semantics and with no output schema to explain, the definition covers target, identifier, and authorization. Only the irreversibility/side-effect story is absent, a minor gap.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Link ID', uuid format), so the schema fully documents it. 'By ID' in the description merely echoes that, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 (Delete) and a precisely-named resource (project ↔ infrastructure feature link), and clarifies it removes the link rather than the underlying asset — which separates it from siblings like delete_infrastructure_asset or delete_project_asset in a very large delete_* family.

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 implies usage (remove an existing link) and supplies a hard prerequisite — the project_infrastructure_assets:write scope — but never states when to prefer this over update_project_infrastructure_asset or what happens to the linked entities.

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