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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds the authorization-related behavioral detail that the location must be owned by the authenticated project. It does not contradict annotations and is consistent with the deletion semantics.

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 short and front-loaded, but the first line 'Delete Location' repeats the tool name/title. The second sentence earns its place by adding the resource and ownership scope.

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 one-parameter deletion tool with an output schema and rich annotations (destructive, idempotent, readOnly=false), the description plus structured metadata fully covers what an agent needs: what is deleted and the ownership precondition. No critical behavior or parameter details are missing.

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%, and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as a unique numeric identifier. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema carries the full burden, matching the baseline for high 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Remove' with explicit resource 'project location' and scoping condition 'owned by the authenticated project'. This clearly differentiates it from getLocation, updateLocation, listLocations, and other delete tools.

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 ownership constraint ('owned by the authenticated project') functions as a precondition for when the tool applies, and the delete action is self-selecting among location siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but gives enough context to decide.

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