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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: it specifies what is deleted (repository row) and what is preserved (git data on disk). It also discloses the return value and permission requirements. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. It packs in the key caveat (disk untouched), permission requirements, and return value without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: action, effects, prerequisites, and return format. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 both 'owner' and 'repo' documented in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter details, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema fully covers parameter semantics.

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 action: 'Permanently delete a repository row.' It specifies the resource (repository row) and distinguishes from siblings like gluecron_update_repo by emphasizing deletion. The note that git data on disk is left untouched further clarifies scope, making the purpose 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?

It states the primary use case (deleting a repo) and explicitly lists required permissions (admin access and token scope). It doesn't mention when not to use it, but as the only deletion tool, no alternative exists. The disk caveat also guides usage by clarifying what is not affected.

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