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

Goes well past the annotations: discloses that run history is destroyed along with the function, that ownership limits deletion (a foreign id deletes nothing rather than erroring), and the full write protocol — status='confirmation_required', action_id, plan_token, and the write occurring only via confirm_action. This is consistent with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with verb, resource, cascade, and scope; the confirmation mechanics are grouped in a labeled block. The standalone sentence 'Proposed for confirmation.' is redundant with the CONFIRMATION paragraph that follows it.

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 one-param tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what gets destroyed, ownership scoping, that the call is two-phase, and the shape of the confirmation response (status, action_id, plan_token).

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?

The single function_id parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does: the id identifies a sandboxed user function within the caller's workspace, and an id belonging to another owner or tenant silently deletes nothing — semantics the bare string type does not convey. The id's format is still unspecified.

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) plus resource (sandboxed user function) and adds the cascade effect (its run history) and scoping (by id, from the caller's workspace). An agent can distinguish this from update_function or get_function purely from the description.

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?

Clear context: delete a function by id, scoped to the caller's own workspace, with wrong-owner ids treated as no-ops. It also documents the confirmation requirement. It never explicitly contrasts with siblings like update_function or delete_* variants, but the precondition and the confirmation path are spelled out.

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