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 description is not carrying the safety burden alone. It still adds genuinely useful behavior context by naming exactly what is destroyed (subscriber records) and what survives (contacts), which 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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the destruction scope is front-loaded and the retention caveat follows immediately.

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 single-parameter destructive delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this covers what an agent must know: it is permanent and contacts are not affected. Only the absence of any rollback/irreversibility confirmation or prerequisite note 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?

Only one parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance for the audience ID, leaving it at the baseline.

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 (permanently delete) and resource (audience) plus a precise scope note: subscriber records go, contacts stay. That distinguishes it from bulk-remove-audience-subscribers and bulk-delete-contacts by implication, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'permanently' and 'contacts are kept' framing tells an agent this is an irreversible container removal, not a contact purge. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative such as update-audience for reversible changes.

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