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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two key traits: the caller must own the routine, and deleting it also removes its run history. It does not state whether the deletion is irreversible or what happens if ownership fails, but it adds meaningful context beyond the bare tool name.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, ownership condition, and cascade effect efficiently.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope: what is deleted and that run history is included. It could mention irreversibility, but it is otherwise complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the single routine_id parameter is already documented in the schema. The description does not add any format, constraint, or usage detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: delete a routine. It also states the ownership constraint and the cascade to run history, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_routine, run_routine, or list_routines.

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 implies when deletion is appropriate but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives such as update_routine or list_routines, and it gives no prerequisites beyond the implied ownership condition.

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