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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds what the agent cannot see there: data is destroyed, billing stops, backups survive for one week, and the action is irreversible. That is exactly the context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 tight sentences, each carrying distinct load: effect, side effects and retention, irreversibility plus confirmation requirement. Irreversibility is front-loaded with 'Cannot be undone', which is the right emphasis for a destructive tool.

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 no output schema, everything material is covered: what is removed, what is retained and for how long, billing impact, reversibility, and the confirmation step. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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 single 'id' parameter is documented as coming from list_services. The description's only contribution is the phrase 'naming the service', which hints at identifying it but adds no syntax or sourcing detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a service') and immediately scopes the blast radius ('and its data, and stop billing it'). This clearly separates it from siblings like stop_service, restart_service, or back_up_service, which operate on the service without removing it.

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 a concrete pre-call ritual: confirm with the person first, naming the service. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with stop_service (the reversible alternative), so the agent must infer that a mere pause should use a sibling instead, but the guidance present is actionable.

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