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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly supplied. The description adds materially beyond that by disclosing the soft-delete semantics, that the row is retained for analytics history, and that the change is reversible from the dashboard — behavioral context an agent cannot derive from the schema or annotations alone.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the non-obvious soft-delete behavior, then the parameter choice. No sentence is redundant and nothing important is buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers what the operation does and what happens to the data afterwards (retention, restorability). It is slightly short on batch return semantics — e.g., what happens on partial failure when deleting up to 200 ids, or whether a de-eliminated id errors — but for a two-parameter tool this is close to complete.

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 100% and both properties are already documented in the schema, including the mutual exclusivity note and the 200 maxItems constraint. The description restates the id/ids choice and the batch limit without adding format or failure-handling detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Remove a location from the locator'), and the resource name cleanly separates it from the sibling delete_spotlight_rule and delete_territory tools. It also immediately qualifies the operation as a soft delete, so the agent knows this is not a hard purge.

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 explains how to choose between the two parameters ('Pass `ids` instead of `id` to delete up to 200 in one call'), which is useful invocation guidance. It gives no guidance about when to delete versus deactivate/update a location, or when this tool should be avoided in favor of update_location or a territory operation, so tool-level routing is left to inference.

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