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 useful authorization context by stating the required scope (work_requests:write), but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, what happens to related records, or error behavior for missing IDs.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the scope requirement follows efficiently.

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 simple single-parameter delete operation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and the required write scope. It is somewhat sparse on irreversibility and post-deletion behavior, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 documented as 'Work request ID' in the schema. The description only says 'by ID', adding no format, syntax, or semantic detail beyond the structured schema, which is the expected baseline when coverage is high.

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?

The description states a specific verb (Delete) and resource (work request) with an identifying key (by ID). It clearly distinguishes this operation from sibling read/update/list tools on the same resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with other delete_* tools, which is unnecessary given the distinct resource name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_work_request or other delete tools. Usage is only implied by the verb, with no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated.

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