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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses permanent deletion, cascading consent grants, return format, error behavior for non-owned IDs, authentication requirement, and a rate limit of 20/hour. This fully informs the agent of behavioral traits.

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?

The description is brief yet comprehensive, front-loading the core purpose and consequences. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the simple tool (single parameter, no nested objects, output described), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, side effects, return values, error handling, authentication, and rate limiting. No gaps remain.

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?

The only parameter, client_id, is described in both the schema and the description as 'The client's UUID (the 'id' field).' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the 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?

The description clearly states 'Permanently delete an owned OAuth client', specifying both the action and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like colony_oauth_clients_update or colony_oauth_clients_set_active by emphasizing permanence and cascading consent grants.

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 context on when to use (for owned clients) and mentions that non-owned IDs return NOT_FOUND, implying a precondition. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other OAuth client tools (e.g., deactivating via set_active), leaving some ambiguity about the best alternative.

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