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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds behavior annotations cannot express: the deletion cascades to the territory's rules, and the change is not visitor-visible until publish_territories runs. That is exactly the 'what gets destroyed / when it takes effect' context that matters for a destructive call.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the action is front-loaded and the publish-lag caveat follows immediately. Every clause 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 one-parameter, no-output-schema destructive call, the description plus annotations cover everything needed to invoke it correctly: what is deleted, that rules go with it, and that effects are deferred until publish.

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%, so the single required 'id' parameter is already documented, and the description adds nothing about its format or source. Baseline 3 per the high-coverage rule.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a territory') and adds the cascade scope ('and its rules'), which distinguishes it from delete_location and delete_spotlight_rule without opening a schema. The destructive scope is 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?

Names the required follow-up action (publish_territories) and the consequence of skipping it, which is genuine workflow guidance an agent needs. It stops short of explicitly contrasting this tool with delete_location or delete_spotlight_rule, so no exclusion guidance is given.

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