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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: that buildings lose scoring for that system/metric, that past status snapshots survive the deletion, and that los_targets:write scope is required. Missing only details like cascading effects on other references.

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 tight sentences: the operation is front-loaded, followed by the side effect and the prerequisite. No filler or redundancy.

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, the description covers operation, side effects, data retention, and required scope. An agent has enough to call it correctly; slightly more on cascade behavior or irreversibility of the scoring change would make it complete.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the UUID 'id' field. The description's 'by ID' adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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 system LoS target by ID'), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like delete_infrastructure_los_target or delete_los_proposed_target, but the naming and description are unambiguous about the target entity.

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 conveys the consequence of using the tool (buildings stop being scored on that system and metric), which helps an agent judge when deletion is appropriate, and names a prerequisite scope. However, it never states when to use this versus alternatives such as update or a different delete variant, so routing guidance is only implied.

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