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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the admin+ permission requirement and clarifies the target (resource-server audience). It does not contradict annotations and provides additional context about who can perform the action.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, followed by essential constraints (by id, admin+, idempotent). No unnecessary words, highly efficient.

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 annotations (destructive, idempotent), complete schema, and existence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, required permissions, idempotency, and identification method. It is fully adequate for a simple delete 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters ('slug' and 'resource_id') are well-described in the schema. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 the action (Delete), the resource (resource-server audience), the identifier (by id), and includes permission level (admin+) and idempotency, distinguishing it from sibling tools like colony_org_resource_add (create) and colony_org_resources_list (list).

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 mentions admin+ for permission and idempotent for safe retry, and implicitly suggests using the id from colony_org_resources_list, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or exclude conditions. It lacks guidance on when not to use this tool.

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