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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'Irreversible' adds context beyond the annotation by specifying the consequence. It also discloses that the tool deletes associated answers/statements, which is a behavioral trait not captured in the schema or annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the irreversibility warning is placed immediately after, making it highly scannable.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the action, scope, and irreversibility. It could mention that the operation cannot be undone or that it affects dependent data, but 'Irreversible' already covers the key risk. The lack of an output schema is not a gap since delete tools typically return minimal confirmation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (qid and survey_id) with references to list_questions and list_surveys. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a question and its answers/statements'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_survey, delete_quota, and remove_answer_option. The scope of deletion is explicit, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool operates on.

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 when to use it (when a question must be removed) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like remove_answer_option for deleting only an answer option. The irreversibility warning provides some usage caution, but no explicit routing to alternatives.

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