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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so "Cannot be undone" largely restates structured data. The genuinely additive information is the approval gate and the requirement to match the approved proposal revision — a concurrency safeguard — but the description does not say what a revision mismatch produces or what the call returns, leaving the mutation behavior partly opaque.

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?

One short sentence with the destructive verb and irreversibility front-loaded; no filler, no repetition of the title.

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 three-parameter destructive mutation, the definition plus annotations and full schema coverage tell an agent what it needs to call safely. The only gap is error behavior on a revision mismatch, which is minor given no output schema exists to document.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including approved const true and the 64-hex revision pattern. The description adds only the linkage that expectedRevision comes from the approved proposal, which is useful but marginal beyond the schema baseline.

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 delete a dashboard") plus the precondition and irreversibility. It is distinguishable from the read/duplicate/rename siblings, though it does not explicitly name report_propose_dashboard_deletion as the tool that produces the required revision.

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?

"after explicit approval, using the proposal revision" gives clear preconditions for calling: a deletion proposal must exist and have been approved. It stops short of naming the sibling that creates that proposal or stating what to do if the revision is stale, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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