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. The description adds non-obvious context beyond that: the exact OAuth scope required to perform the deletion, which the agent could not infer from the annotations.

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, zero filler, with the action and lookup key front-loaded and the auth constraint following. Every word 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 delete whose annotations fully cover destructiveness and idempotency, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the target, the key, and the required scope. It omits only edge-case behavior such as whether deletion fails when work orders reference the category, a minor gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 the single required 'id' parameter is fully documented as a UUID work category ID. The description adds only the redundant phrase 'by ID', so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 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 specific verb and resource ('Delete a work category') plus the lookup key ('by ID'), which is unambiguous against the many sibling delete_* tools. It stops short of any explicit sibling differentiation, which it doesn't need given the distinct resource name, so 4 is appropriate.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires work_categories:write scope') which is genuine usage guidance for an auth-gated mutation. However, it never states when to use this versus alternatives such as update_work_category or list_work_categories, and there are no when-not conditions.

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