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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: what gets destroyed (documents, chunks, structure, attachments), that attached agents lose access, and that the operation cannot be undone. It also explains the owner/admin privilege requirement.

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?

Three dense sentences with no redundancy. The deletion scope is front-loaded, followed by authorization, side effects on attached agents, and irreversibility. 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 operation with an output schema, the description fully covers what is deleted, who is allowed to delete, the consequence for attached agents, and the fact that it cannot be undone. No essential invocation information is missing.

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, kb_id, is fully documented in the schema with 'The knowledge base id to delete (from findagent_list_kbs).' Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description needing to add no parameter detail matches 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 states a specific action and object: 'Permanently delete an ENTIRE knowledge base you own.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling delete_kb_document by emphasizing the entire KB, including documents, chunks, structure, and attachments.

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?

Usage context is explicit: the user must own the KB, and deleting a shared organization KB requires org owner/admin rights. It does not explicitly name an alternative for deleting a single document, but the scope and ownership requirements make the intended use unambiguous.

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