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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the cross-project blast radius ('a shared string is deleted permanently for those projects too') and the deletion count returned. It does not explain the non-idempotent behavior, which the annotations flag.

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 tight sentences with the usage trigger front-loaded, then the side-effect warning, then the exclusion. Every sentence carries information and none is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present (return values needn't be described) and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining critical piece an agent needs: the permanent, multi-project consequence of deleting a shared string. Nothing essential is 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%, so both parameters (key, project) are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the key is deleted 'in every language' but adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond what is already there. 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?

States a specific verb (delete/remove) and resource (a key/string in translations) with the critical scope qualifier 'in every language', which distinguishes it from the many sibling phrase tools like update_phrase or add_phrase. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

'Use this when someone asks to remove a key from their translations' gives clear positive context, and 'Not for removing only one language's translation' gives an explicit exclusion. It stops short of naming the sibling tool that handles single-language removal, but the boundary is unambiguous.

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