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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it states that database/files are kept by default, that purge destroys them forever, and that purge_confirm is then required. It could additionally state whether the default container/release/sharing deletion is itself irreversible, but the core destructive behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds information: scope of deletion, default retention, purge behavior, and confirmation requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main effects, defaults, and conditional requirement. Minor gaps remain, such as whether the non-purge deletion is reversible and how workspace selection interacts with the tool short name, but the schema covers the workspace parameter and the core invocation path is 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the default behavior of purge ('By default the tool's database and files are kept') and by reinforcing the purge/purge_confirm dependency. This helps the agent understand the conditional relationship without opening the schema.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('tool'), then enumerates exactly what gets removed: container, releases, and sharing. This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_tool and list_tools, and from partial operations like share, unshare, and releases.

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 gives no guidance on when to use delete_tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Since this is a destructive operation among many non-destructive sibling tools, the agent gets no help deciding whether to inspect first with get_tool or list_tools.

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