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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds significant detail: 'Permanently deletes the resource. Irreversible.' It also discloses the conflict behavior (refuses and names campaigns) and the force override, plus Space scoping behavior. This goes far beyond annotation basics.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds distinct value: irreversibility, conflict handling, and scope override. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: what is deleted, irreversibility, failure conditions, override mechanism, and space scoping. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 67% (conversion_action_id lacks description). The description explains force ('Pass force to delete anyway') and space_id ('pass space_id to override for this one call') in meaningful context. conversion_action_id is left implicit, but it is the required resource identifier and is obvious from the tool name.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Delete a conversion action.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_conversion_action, update_conversion_action, and get/list_conversion_action. It also adds irreversibility, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (to permanently delete a conversion action) and explains the conflict scenario when campaigns bid on the action. It mentions set_active_space as an alternative for scope switching, but does not explicitly name alternate tools for deletion or when not to use. Still, the usage context is strong.

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