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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is lighter. It adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that the action 'cannot be undone,' which goes beyond the bare destructive hint and alerts the agent to the permanence of the side effect.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The most important fact—permanence—is front-loaded in the first sentence and reinforced in the second. Every word 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 one-parameter destructive action with a documented schema and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It could mention what happens to associated resources or billing, especially given openWorldHint=true, but for most agent decision-making purposes the core consequences are clear.

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 100% and the only parameter, 'id', is already well documented as 'Instance (agent) id, as returned by create_instance or list_instances.' The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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'), a clear resource ('instance'), and a key qualifier ('Permanently') that distinguishes it from non-destructive lifecycle operations like pause_instance or resume_instance. This is immediately actionable for an agent choosing among the sibling 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 description clearly conveys that this tool is for permanent deletion, which gives the agent the main contextual signal for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use conditions, but the irreversibility is a strong implicit exclusion against casual use.

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