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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds value by specifying the irreversibility ('Irreversible — confirm with the user') and the precondition that the survey must have no completes. This goes beyond the annotation and gives the agent important behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and its preconditions; the second adds the irreversibility warning. Every word earns its place, and the most important constraint (permanently delete, no completes) is front-loaded.

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 the key context: what can be deleted, what must happen first, and that the action is irreversible. It doesn't describe the return value, but with no output schema and a simple delete operation, that's a minor gap. The confirmation requirement is also a useful addition.

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 survey_id well, including its type, minimum, and how to obtain it. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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'), a specific resource ('survey'), and the exact scope ('draft or closed survey with no completes'). It also distinguishes from related tools like close_survey and pause_survey by noting that live/paused surveys must be closed first. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 says when deletion is allowed ('draft or closed survey with no completes') and when it is not ('Live/paused surveys must be closed first'). This gives the agent a clear decision rule and implies the alternative workflow (close_survey first). It also warns to confirm with the user, which is a usage guideline for a destructive action.

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