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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful piece of context not present in structured fields: the required 'work_orders:write' scope. It stops short of disclosing cascade behavior for dependent records (comments, schedules), which matters for a destructive delete.

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 and identifier front-loaded, followed by the permission requirement. No filler and every sentence 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 single-parameter destructive delete whose annotations already declare destructiveness and idempotency, the description plus schema covers what an agent needs to invoke it. Adding whether the deletion cascades to sub-resources or can be undone 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented (UUID, pattern) in the schema. The description only echoes 'by ID', adding no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 order by ID'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling deletes such as delete_work_order_comment or delete_work_order_schedule. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, so it falls 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the scope string, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., update/closing a work order, or get_work_order to verify first). The context of when deletion is appropriate is entirely left to the agent to infer.

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