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

The description claims the tool is destructive ('Delete/cancel'), but the annotations set destructiveHint=false, creating a clear contradiction. This undermines the agent's ability to assess risk. The description does add the requirement for the 'confirm' parameter value, but the contradiction is a critical flaw.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, containing no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, clearly stating the action and a key prerequisite.

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?

Given the destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description fails to mention return values, side effects, or prerequisites (e.g., ownership, plan status). The annotation contradiction further reduces reliability. The description is incomplete for safe operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning by stating that 'confirm' must be set to 'DELETE_PLAN'. This is a critical constraint beyond the schema. The meaning of 'communityObjectId' is not explained, but the parameter name is self-explanatory.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete/cancel') and the resource ('a community plan'), differentiating it from siblings like 'cancel_plan' and 'change_plan'. The mention of 'legacy plan endpoint' provides additional context.

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 specifies the requirement that 'confirm' must be set to 'DELETE_PLAN', which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cancel_plan' or 'revoke_plan_cancellation', nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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