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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds genuine context beyond them: the workspace-level consequence of removing the primary profile and the fact that the action cannot be undone. It does not mention what happens to campaigns or leads tied to the ICP.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, the primary-profile edge case, and irreversibility. The most actionable warning is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description conveys the essentials: irreversible deletion and the primary-profile consequence. It leaves open whether a replacement primary must be set first and what happens to dependent campaigns, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is a single parameter, and the schema already documents it fully (100% coverage) including its origin in list_icps. The description adds nothing about the id argument, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Deletes an Ideal Customer Profile'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling deletions such as delete_campaign or delete_lead. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it lands just short of a 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?

Usage is only implied: the note about the primary profile suggests the caller should think about set_primary_icp or get_primary_icp first, but the description never says when to use this versus those alternatives or when deletion should be avoided. The schema's pointer to list_icps is the only routing help.

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