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

Although annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, the description goes well beyond them by enumerating concrete downstream effects: removal from list_widget_metrics, set_widget_metric_value failing with 'Metric not found', and widgets silently stopping updates. It also states the change is irreversible via MCP and describes the return value.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then consequences, then the alternative. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is padding.

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 tool with an output schema and destructive annotations, this covers effects, irreversibility, the alternative tool, and the return value. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it safely 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already tells the agent where to obtain public_id (list_widget_metrics or create_widget_metric). The description adds no further syntax or format detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 and resource ('Delete a Lock Screen Widget metric') and immediately distinguishes it from update_widget_metric. An agent can tell it apart from the other delete_* siblings (delete_api_key, delete_channel) by the resource named.

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?

It routes the agent explicitly: 'to rename a metric or change its format, use update_widget_metric instead,' and warns it cannot be undone through MCP. It gives a clear alternative for the adjacent need but stops short of describing prerequisites (e.g., permissions) or any other when-not conditions.

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