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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description still adds valuable context beyond them: deletion is permanent and cascades to notes and history, and a confirmation step is required. It does not mention permission requirements or behavior on an invalid/not-found id.

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 the destructive action and its scope, then the alternative, then the confirmation requirement. No filler.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers destruction scope, the safer alternative, and a confirmation gate. Only minor gaps remain (error/not-found behavior, permission needs).

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description could have compensated by clarifying what opportunity_id refers to. 'Delete one deal' implies the identifier targets a specific deal, and the param name is self-explanatory, but no format or sourcing guidance is added.

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 (permanently delete) and resource (one deal) plus the cascade scope (its notes and history). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from crm_move_opportunity by name, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool (crm_move_opportunity) and the condition that selects it ('to close a deal without losing it'). It also adds a prerequisite gate: 'Confirm first.' Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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