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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false. The description adds genuine value beyond them: buildings stop being scored on that system/metric, past status snapshots are retained, and a los_targets:write scope is required. That answers what is and isn't destroyed, which annotations alone cannot.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the side effect, then the auth requirement. No filler or repetition.

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-param destructive delete with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the blast radius, data retention behavior, and required scope. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior on a nonexistent ID or error semantics.

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 coverage, so the schema already documents the UUID 'id' fully. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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') and adds the scoring consequence, so the agent knows exactly what is removed. It does not distinguish this from the similarly named sibling delete_infrastructure_los_target, which leaves some sibling ambiguity unresolved.

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?

Usage is implied by the CRUD verb and the 'by ID' phrasing, plus the required scope, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the infrastructure variant or update/archive alternatives. Adequate but leaves the choice to inference.

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