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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds material context beyond them: deletion is irreversible, the hard DIDs-assigned prerequisite, and the side effect that reserved shared channels return to the Capacity Pool as free channels. This is exactly the behavioral detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and id source, then the destructiveness, the prerequisite, the side effect, and the return. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 output schema, the definition covers prerequisite state, irreversibility, side effects, and even the confirmation return. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (id, confirmation_token) are fully documented in the schema, including the two-phase confirmation flow. The description echoes the id provenance (list_capacity_groups) already stated in the schema but adds no new parameter-level syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 (Delete) and resource (Shared Capacity Group), notes it operates by id sourced from list_capacity_groups, and is clearly distinguishable from sibling operations like create_capacity_group, update_capacity_group, or unassign_did_from_capacity_group. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 explicit preconditions and routing: a group with DIDs assigned cannot be deleted, so the agent must first use unassign_did_from_capacity_group or move DIDs to another group. It also points to list_capacity_groups as the id source. When/why-to-use is fully covered.

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