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

Beyond destructiveHint=true, the description discloses the 409 failure on references, irreversibility, permanence, and Space scoping with override behavior. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that annotations alone don't capture, and there is no contradiction.

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 core action and packed with essential constraints (409, no cascade, irreversible, scope). Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 destructive delete tool with 2 params and no output schema, it covers prerequisites, error handling, permanence, and scope override. The only potential missing item is auth/permissions, but that's not expected given no annotations mention it and the constraints are thorough.

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 covers space_id with a detailed description, but business_id has no description in the schema. The description only restates the space_id override concept and doesn't add new meaning for business_id. With 50% schema coverage, it meets the baseline but doesn't add value beyond the schema.

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?

Starts with 'Delete a business' — a specific verb+resource. Distinguishes from sibling delete_* tools by mentioning the campaign-reference constraint and Space scoping, making it clear this targets business entities only.

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?

Provides a clear precondition: campaigns referencing the business must be deleted/reassigned first, and notes no cascade is offered. Explains Space scoping with a pointer to set_active_space. Does not explicitly mention an alternative like update_business for non-destructive changes, so it's not a full 5.

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