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 the authorization requirement (systems:write), which is real value beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about cascade behavior, dependent records, or failure modes for an irreversible 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 short sentences, action and precondition front-loaded, with no filler or restatement of the title. 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 tool with no output schema and annotations that already carry the safety hints, the description is nearly sufficient. The only meaningful omission is whether deleting a system cascades to related assets, systems groups, or LOS targets.

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% and there is a single required UUID parameter, so the schema fully documents the input. "By ID" in the description adds nothing beyond the schema's "System ID" field, making the baseline of 3 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+resource ("Delete a system by ID") that is unambiguous about what gets removed. It does not differentiate from adjacent siblings like delete_system_class, delete_system_group, or delete_system_los_target, but the resource noun itself is clear.

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 an implied usage (delete a system identified by ID) plus a concrete prerequisite (systems:write scope). It offers no when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as update_system, and no warning about dependent records, so usage is only implied rather than explicitly framed.

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