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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that auto cells are not deleted but follow targeting, and should be frozen instead. It could go further and state that deletion is irreversible, but the destructive hint covers the safety profile adequately.

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?

The description is one sentence with a parenthetical clarification, and every part earns its place. The core action is front-loaded, and the important manual/auto distinction is conveyed in the same breath.

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 simple delete operation with two well-documented parameters, clear annotations, and no output schema, this description covers all decision-relevant context. It tells the agent what to delete, what not to delete, and what to do instead for auto cells.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema with descriptions referencing list_quotas and list_surveys/create tools, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') with a precise resource ('a manual quota cell') and immediately distinguishes it from auto quota cells. This clearly differentiates from the sibling tool freeze_auto_quota without requiring schema inspection.

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?

It states when deletion applies (manual quota cells) and explicitly redirects for the alternative case (auto cells: 'freeze them instead'). This provides a clear decision rule for choosing between delete_quota and freezing, which is the key ambiguity for this tool.

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