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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added value is the word "permanently," reinforcing irreversibility; it does not mention what happens to dependent references, permissions required, or the response.

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?

A single five-word sentence with the destructive qualifier front-loaded and zero waste. Appropriate sizing for a one-parameter delete tool whose schema and annotations already carry the detail.

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 simple destructive operation with full annotation coverage, a fully documented single parameter, and no output schema, the description supplies the core fact an agent needs. A brief note on irreversibility consequences or the macro-list source would make it fully complete.

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% for the single macroId parameter, and the schema itself notes it comes from macro-list. The description adds no further semantics, so the 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 (delete) and resource (macro) plus a qualifier (permanently), which is enough to separate it from macro-create, macro-update, and macro-execute in the sibling list. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

"Permanently" implies caution before invoking and signals there is no undo, but the description never says when to prefer this over alternatives or what preconditions apply. Usage is implied by the name and the irreversibility word rather than stated.

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