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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further: it explicitly says the action is irreversible, discloses the non-obvious side effect (tracked queries are not deleted, they only leave the cluster), and explains the confirmationToken gating requirement. That is behavioral content the annotations cannot convey.

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 action and its scope, then the irreversibility warning, then the required workflow. No filler and the highest-risk information arrives early.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Combined with complete safety disclosure, the side-effect clarification, and the mandated preview/confirm workflow, an agent has everything required to call this destructive tool correctly.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains the non-obvious confirmationToken parameter (how to obtain it and from which tool), but organizationId, projectId, clusterId, and requestId remain undocumented. It covers the one parameter that most needs explaining but not the rest.

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 ("Delete a query cluster") and immediately scopes the blast radius: tracked queries survive and merely leave the cluster. That distinction cleanly separates it from delete_tracked_queries and list_clusters in the sibling set.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: call preview_operation with tool "delete_cluster" and the same arguments, show the returned plan to the user, and only call this tool after explicit user agreement. This is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs for a destructive operation.

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