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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context: the deletion is irreversible, leads already collected are retained, and only the schedule is removed. This goes well beyond the annotations and fully discloses the operational impact.

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 tightly written sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second adds critical safety guidance, and the third clarifies behavioral consequences. No filler or redundancy.

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 mutation, the description fully covers prerequisites (confirmation), alternatives (disable instead of delete), effects (schedule removed, leads kept), and irreversibility. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The description is self-sufficient.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single required parameter, id, and explicitly states it comes from list_automations. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but with complete schema coverage the baseline of 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?

The description opens with 'Permanently delete an automation,' using a specific verb and resource while clearly distinguishing this from the sibling update_automation. It also clarifies the destructive nature, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool and when not to, recommending update_automation with active=false as a less destructive alternative for temporary suspension. It also instructs the agent to confirm with the user first, providing direct guidance for safe invocation.

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