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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds 'reusable question' and 'catalog' context, but does not disclose consequences of deletion (e.g., irreversible removal, impact on job postings using the question). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; front-loaded action verb and clear object. Efficient and scannable.

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 one-parameter destructive action, the description plus annotations is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks details about deletion semantics (permanence, cascading, access requirements) and does not identify how to obtain the id, leaving a moderate gap in completeness.

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 0% – the description does not explain the 'id' parameter, how to obtain it, or any constraints (e.g., cannot delete in-use questions). The parameter is self-explanatory but the description does not compensate for missing schema parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a reusable question from the catalog.' It clearly identifies the action and object, distinguishing it from related get/update/list tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other delete-family tools, though the question-specific scope is clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_question or delete_form. The context is implicit for a delete operation, but there is no mention of prerequisites, effects on dependent data, or when not to use.

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