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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely carried by structured data. The description adds real value by bounding the blast radius: lists are not deleted. It does not say whether the deletion is permanent, what happens to leads currently carrying that status, or what error surfaces if the status is in use.

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?

A single short sentence with the scope constraint placed where it matters most. Nothing is padded or repeated from 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?

Annotations cover destructiveness and idempotency, and the description covers resource scope, so an agent can call it safely at a basic level. For a destructive mutation with no output schema and a 50% documented schema, the missing notes on permanence, in-use statuses, and prerequisites leave real gaps.

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 only 50%: request_id carries an idempotency description in the schema, but status_id is documented only as a UUID pattern. The description never references either parameter, so it does not compensate for the undocumented status_id or explain how to obtain one.

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 ('Remove a reusable status definition') and immediately scopes it against the adjacent resource ('without deleting lists'), which separates it from delete_list. It stops short of naming any sibling outright, so 4 rather than 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of update_status as the non-destructive modification path, and no pointer to list_statuses for obtaining a valid status_id. The only routing signal is the passive 'without deleting lists' phrase.

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