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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's job is to add specifics beyond that flag. It does: explicit irreversibility plus the downstream consequence that blocks rendering the deleted form render empty, which is real context an agent can't get from the annotation. It stops short of covering failure behavior (nonexistent id, forms in use elsewhere) or required capabilities.

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 tight sentences plus a one-line prerequisite rule, with the irreversible effect and the confirm-first caution both front-loaded before procedure. Nothing is padding.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, this covers effect, irreversibility, confirmation, and the required skill doc. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior when the id is unknown or the form is referenced elsewhere.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already says 'Form id from list-forms', and the description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully carries the parameter.

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 (delete a Contact Form 7 form) and immediately scopes the effect ('a block rendering it shows nothing afterwards'), which distinguishes it from update-cf7-form and the other delete-* siblings. An agent can tell what this does and what it touches 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?

Gives two concrete operating conditions: confirm with the user first, and read the forms-contract skill doc before the first call. It doesn't explicitly contrast with update-cf7-form, but the destructive-vs-modify distinction is self-evident from the name, so the missing alternative is low-cost.

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