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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that it is destructive; instead it discloses the downstream consequences: the set stops matching stores and vanishes from listSignalSets and dashboard tabs. The irreversibility warning ("You cannot undo this") and the plan restriction are exactly the operational context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with what happens, then consequences, then the confirmation protocol and plan constraint. No filler and nothing repeated from the annotations.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, side effects, irreversibility, plan gating, and the required user-confirmation step. An agent has everything it needs to invoke this safely.

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% with a single required setId, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds only the indirect hint that the set has a name worth confirming, without stating anything about id format or lookup beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Delete one of your signal sets" states a specific verb and resource, and the surrounding text makes the scope of the deletion concrete. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings such as listSignalSets, getSignalSet, previewSignalSet and saveSignalSet, which read or write without removing.

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?

It gives real preconditions: paid plans only, confirm with the user first, and name the set in the confirmation question. The schema also points to listSignalSets as the source of setId, so the calling workflow is implied. What is missing is an explicit statement of when deletion is the right action versus keeping or renaming the set, but for a delete tool the guidance is well above average.

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