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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds useful behavior: the browsing-destination side effect and the result:null success response. It still omits failure behavior, such as what happens when expectedVersion does not match.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the delete action, followed by the side effect and success return value. There is no repetition or wasted prose.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover the return shape and safety profile, and the description adds the browsing-destination side effect. With two required parameters at 0% schema description coverage, missing parameter semantics and failure behavior leave meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions expectedVersion but does not explain that it is a concurrency token, and it does not clarify addressId semantics, ownership requirements, or identifier format.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: delete an owned user address using its concurrency token. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling mutations such as updateUserAddress or createUserAddress.

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 is implied by 'Delete the selected owned address' and the note about clearing a browsing destination when applicable. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and does not name alternative sibling tools.

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