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

Goes well beyond destructiveHint=true: it discloses the required admin role, the dry-run-by-default behavior, exactly what the destructive branch removes (issues lose the label) versus what it leaves untouched (automations, SLA rules, views keep pointing at the deleted label), and that the response warns the human to review them. replaceWith is described as applied before deletion, with template behavior specified separately.

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?

Front-loads the action and the admin restriction, then the confirm/no-confirm contract, then the exceptions. It is dense but every clause carries operative information; the nested parenthetical enumerating impact fields makes it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: precondition (admin), safe-call pattern (call without confirm first), the shape of the impact report, and post-deletion state of dependent objects. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does: confirm is defined by its effect (no confirm = impact report only), replaceWith by its type (id of another label) and per-context behavior (issues reassigned, templates swapped). Only the `id` parameter is left implicit, though it is inferable from "Borra una label".

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?

"Borra una label de issues" gives a specific verb and resource and adds scope (issue labels, admin-only). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling delete_project_label, so the agent must infer the label-type split from the wording alone.

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 states clearly when deletion actually happens (only with confirm=true) and what the call does otherwise (returns impact so the caller can decide), which is the key usage decision for this tool. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the project-label case, so it is strong context without explicit exclusions.

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