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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description does not state whether deletion is irreversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to related generated content. These are significant omissions for a destructive tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but perhaps too terse given the destructive nature of the operation.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It does not explain prerequisites, reversibility, side effects, or what 'staged' means in this context.

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 only 50%: product_id is documented in the schema, but opportunity_ids has no description. The tool description adds no parameter details at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented array parameter.

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 ('staged opportunities') with a qualifying purpose ('that shouldn't be generated'). It is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with list_opportunities or other opportunity-related tools.

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 phrase 'staged opportunities that shouldn't be generated' implies a condition for use, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. An agent can infer this is for cleanup of unwanted staged items, but the guidance is minimal.

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