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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the crucial detail of WHAT is destroyed: all linked measures, measurements, and junction records. It also states the required auth scope. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a cascade delete.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the destructive warning front-loaded ahead of the scope 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 one-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers action, cascade side effects, and authorization. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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% for the single id parameter (uuid format/pattern documented), so the schema carries the load. The description's 'by ID' adds no meaning beyond it; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a service area by ID', which is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as delete_service_area_site or delete_service_area_system_class, leaving that distinction to the name alone.

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 the precondition (requires service_areas:write scope) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and names no alternatives among the many delete_* siblings. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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