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

The description adds 'This action cannot be undone!' which goes beyond the annotation destructiveHint:true by specifying irreversibility. This is valuable context that reinforces the permanent nature of the deletion, though it doesn't discuss other potential side effects like dependencies or permission requirements.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key warning. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is optimal for quick comprehension.

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, one-parameter delete operation with a clear annotation (destructiveHint:true), the description is sufficient. It communicates the action and irreversibility, and no output schema exists to explain. Minor gaps like side effects or prerequisites are not critical for this tool.

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 100% for the single parameter tableId, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no additional parameter-specific context, which is acceptable given the complete schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'roll table', which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like roll-table-create, roll-table-get, and roll-table-update. It is specific and immediately understandable.

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?

The description implies usage (you use it to delete a roll table) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions. For a simple delete operation, the intent is obvious, but the guidance is minimal and relies on inference.

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