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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the mutation and idempotency aspects. The description adds value by disclosing the return values (true on success, false if not found), which is beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotations and provides useful behavior context.

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 concise sentence that packs the action, the key parameter reference, and the return behavior. No redundant words or filler. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately actionable.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description covers the core behavior and return values. It does not mention error conditions beyond 'not found', but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity. The annotations cover destructive and idempotent behavior, and the schema documents parameters. Overall, the agent has enough information to call this 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% for both parameters (id and scope), so the schema already fully documents their meanings. The description only mentions 'by id', which adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. The scope parameter is not elaborated in the description, but the schema covers it. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('mapping'), and clearly identifies the operation as removal by ID. It distinguishes from siblings like set_mapping (create/update) and list_mappings (read-only) through the explicit delete action. The return behavior is also noted, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a mapping needs to be removed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the verb 'delete' makes the use case self-evident. No guidance is given for edge cases like when to prefer set_mapping over delete, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer the intended usage.

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