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 the required authorization scope, which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, though it omits whether dependent records (comments, schedules) are cascaded or how failures behave.

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: the action comes first and the permission requirement second. No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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 delete with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition supplies what an agent needs to invoke it correctly, including the auth scope. The remaining gap is the destructive side-effect surface (cascading deletes, reversibility) that an agent might want before firing a permanent 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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the uuid 'id' field. The phrase 'by ID' restates the schema rather than adding format, validation, or lookup guidance, so the 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 specific verb (delete) and the exact resource (a work order), identified by ID, which cleanly separates it from the many sibling deletes such as delete_work_order_comment, delete_work_order_schedule and delete_work_request. It does not explicitly name any alternative, so it stops short of the top score.

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 prerequisite 'Requires work_orders:write scope' gives an actionable gate for calling the tool. However, there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and nothing warns that deletion is permanent or suggesting a lookup step first.

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