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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's real contribution is the data-lifecycle detail: execution stops immediately, and the prompt plus its historical responses are soft-deleted, retained 30 days, then purged. This meaningfully extends the annotations by quantifying the blast radius (historical responses included) and the recovery window. It omits permission requirements and any effects on related entities such as attached tags, which keeps it from a 5.

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, front-loaded with the action, then immediate effect, then retention timeline. Every sentence adds a distinct fact and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, when it takes effect, and how long it is recoverable, which is what an agent most needs before invoking it. Gaps are minor: no return value mention (acceptable, no output schema) and no note on permissions or side effects on related prompt associations.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The numeric id of the prompt to delete'), and the description adds nothing further about it. With the schema already carrying the semantics, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Delete a prompt"), and the tool name plus the prompt_id parameter make the target unambiguous among the delete-* siblings, which all operate on other resource types. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with update-prompt-tool or other ways of stopping a prompt, but the action is clear.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for removing a prompt entirely. There is no explicit guidance on when to delete versus pause/update via update-prompt-tool, and no stated prerequisites such as required permissions or ownership. The 30-day retention is informative but framed as behavior, not as decision guidance (e.g., 'deletion is recoverable within 30 days').

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