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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behavioral traits: the destructive nature and the billing side effect. However it omits irreversibility, required permissions, and whether dependent resources (e.g. apps tied to the territory) are affected.

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, action front-loaded with the consequence and the destructive marker trailing. Every word earns its place with zero padding.

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 simple one-parameter delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the essentials (what it deletes, billing impact, destructive flag) are present. It still leaves irreversibility and dependent-resource behavior unstated, which matters for an irreversible mutation.

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% and the sole parameter territory_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The parameter is only inferable from the tool name, so the description adds no real semantic meaning beyond what the identifier implies.

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+resource ('Delete a territory') and adds the billing consequence. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_territory, rename_territory, and list_territories without opening a schema, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is not told when deletion is appropriate versus, say, rename_territory or get_territory_status, nor whether confirmation is required.

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