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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known, but the description adds substantive context beyond them: irreversibility ("This cannot be undone") and the workspace-level side effect that deleting the primary leaves no active profile. It omits what happens to campaigns or other entities referencing the ICP, but for a single-ID delete this is solid added value.

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, no filler, with the core action and the most important warning (irreversibility) front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, the description covers action, irreversibility, and the primary-profile edge case. Only unresolved downstream effects (e.g., impact on campaigns using the ICP) keep 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the single required id parameter, including its source (list_icps). The description adds nothing about the identifier, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (deletes) and resource (Ideal Customer Profile) in the first sentence, which cleanly separates it from sibling deleters like delete_campaign, delete_lead, and delete_webhook. An agent can identify the target entity 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?

The description explains a consequence of deleting the primary ICP but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never points to alternatives such as update_icp (to modify instead) or set_primary_icp (to reassign primacy first). The agent must infer usage entirely.

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