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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral requirement the annotations do not capture: a human approval gate in BEON PASS before the destructive action runs. It stops short of describing what is actually destroyed (branch data, recoverability), keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentences, with the destructive purpose front-loaded and the approval prerequisite second. It is efficient and free of padding, though the extreme brevity is arguably under-informative for an 8-param tool.

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, non-idempotent tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits what gets deleted, whether the action is reversible, and how approval_id/beon_app_id relate to the approval gate it references.

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% with 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails it. It never mentions branch_ref (the sole required param and its 20-char pattern) nor explains any of the six opaque beon_* parameters, leaving the agent to infer the approval flow linkage on its own.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a development environment'), which is clear enough for an agent to act on. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the obvious siblings (supabase_create_branch, supabase_list_branches, supabase_merge_branch), and it uses 'environment' where the tool actually operates on a Supabase branch.

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 adds a genuine prerequisite — user approval of the exact request in BEON PASS must happen before execution — which signals an out-of-band workflow. It gives no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like supabase_delete_project, nor any conditions or exclusions.

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