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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real value on top: it explains WHY the confirmation gates exist ('pricing rules can affect many listings') and that channel/ChannelOAuthId is resolved internally. It does not, however, say what state remains after deletion or whether the rule is recoverable.

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-loaded with the action and scope in the first sentence, followed by prerequisites. The trailing 'Requires HGRApi Header channel / ChannelOAuthId resolved internally' fragment is slightly jargon-heavy but earns its place by explaining an auth-resolution detail.

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 4-param mutation tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers what it does, the side-effect risk, and the required confirmation flow. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 100%, so the boolean gates, body fields, and channelOAuthId are already documented. The description reinforces the confirmation semantics but adds little new detail on the body's RuleId/Active fields beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Deletes/deactivates a pricing rule') and scope ('for one visible store'), which clearly sets it apart from hgr_add_pricing_rule and hgr_update_pricing_rule. The dual 'Deletes/deactivates' wording is crisp enough but leaves slight ambiguity about which effect actually occurs.

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 implies usage through the confirmation prerequisites ('Requires confirmed=true and impactConfirmed=true'), but never explicitly says when to use this versus hgr_update_pricing_rule or hgr_get_pricing_rules. An agent must infer that deleting differs from updating the Active flag.

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