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

Annotations already flag destructive/idempotent, but the description goes well beyond them: it names the cascaded entities (versions, cron triggers), states that running agents are retained via immutable snapshots, and warns that integration settings may hold a stale public profile ID causing future launches to fail as unavailable. That is exactly the side-effect disclosure a mutation tool needs.

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, front-loaded with the cascade scope, then consequences for agents and integrations. No sentence is filler; each adds a distinct operational fact.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what is destroyed, what survives, and the downstream breakage risk. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers parameters, so no meaningful gap remains.

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 all three IDs are documented with patterns in the schema, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making 3 the correct baseline.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource and immediately scopes the cascade: the profile, all profile versions, and cron triggers targeting it. That cascade detail distinguishes it from sibling deletes like crons_delete and from non-destructive siblings like profiles_rename and profiles_update.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive cascade description, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to a softer alternative (e.g., rename/update or archive) for callers who don't want cascade deletion.

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