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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: a Confirm button gates the deletion, nothing is destroyed until the user taps it, and ineligible businesses return a reason rather than a silent failure. It also names the blast radius — registration details and documents go with the business — which is exactly what an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 sentences, no repetition of the title, and the critical facts are front-loaded: what qualifies for deletion, then the confirmation gate, then the usage restriction. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 mutation with no output schema, the definition covers eligibility, the confirmation flow, and failure signaling. The only meaningful omission is how to source the business_id and whether the deletion is recoverable after confirmation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description has to carry the burden, and it does partially: 'one of their businesses' contextualizes business_id as scoped to the caller's own workspace. It stops short of saying where to obtain the id (e.g. via list_my_businesses) or any format/type detail, so a small gap remains.

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 (delete) and resource (business) plus the exact eligibility scope: 'hasn't been paid for (draft or pending_payment)'. That scope alone separates it from rename_business, create_business, and the read-only siblings, which an agent could not infer from the name.

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 an explicit use condition and an explicit exclusion: 'Call it only when they ask to delete it - not when they just ask whether they can.' The eligibility gate (draft or pending_payment) is stated up front, so the agent also knows when the call will be refused.

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