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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required 'systems:write' scope, which is genuinely useful auth context, but says nothing about irreversibility or whether related records (parts, LOS targets, project systems) are cascaded.

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, front-loading the action and following with the prerequisite. No filler, though it is extremely terse and could absorb one clause of extra context without bloat.

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 destructive, idempotent delete with a fully documented single param and annotation coverage, the essentials are present. The notable gap is deletion side effects (cascading or blocking on dependent records), which an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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 single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as a UUID with a pattern. The description adds nothing beyond naming the resource, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb+resource ('Delete a system by ID'), so the agent knows exactly what it does. However it does not differentiate from close siblings like delete_project_system or delete_system_class, which the name alone must disambiguate.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives (e.g. archiving, or deleting via delete_project_system instead). The only conditional information is the permission scope, which is a prerequisite rather than usage guidance.

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