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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the deletion is permanent and cascades across several asset types, it requires owner access and a typed confirmation, blockers prevent deletion, and external erasure is asynchronous. It also reports the return shape (artist=deleted plus queued purge counts), which is more than destructiveHint alone conveys.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is destroyed, then prerequisites, then blockers and return behavior. No filler and every clause carries meaning.

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 annotations and an output schema, the description covers permissions, confirmation ritual, cascade scope, blockers, and asynchronous external erasure. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description restates the confirmation as 'exact current artist name' and the customer-request context, which largely duplicates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (permanently erases an artist) and spells out the cascade scope — projects, storyboards, references and identity photos — so the agent knows this is a broad entity-level delete. It does not explicitly name a sibling (e.g. studio_artist_reference_delete or studio_project_delete) to disambiguate the narrower deletes, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear conditions for use: catalogue-owner access, the customer's deletion request, and their exact current artist name as confirmation, plus the blockers (in-flight work or payments). It lacks an explicit 'use X instead' for narrower deletion tools, but the when-to-use context is strong.

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