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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them by enumerating exactly what is destroyed (revisions, project grants, uploaded archive content) and what is explicitly not deleted. The blocking condition on active agent references is additional operational context the annotations cannot convey.

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 short sentences, each doing distinct work: what is destroyed, what is spared, and what blocks the operation. The most important information (cascade scope) is front-loaded with no filler.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the full risk surface an agent needs: destruction scope, negative scope, and the precondition that can abort the call. Nothing material 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% with both orgID and skillID fully documented (including ID patterns), so the schema carries parameter semantics entirely. The description adds no further meaning about the identifiers, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Deletes) and resource (the skill), and immediately scopes the cascade: all revisions and project grants. This distinguishes it from skills_get/skills_list and from the sibling grant_skills_delete, which removes a grant rather than the skill itself.

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?

Provides a real precondition rather than a vague hint: deletion is blocked while an active agent's configuration references the skill, so an agent knows the call can fail for that reason. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or spell out the remediation path (e.g. updating the agent config first).

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