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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: soft-delete with 30-day retention before permanent removal, attached brands surviving but losing the segment, and a brand reverting to `discovered` if this was its only segment. Those are non-obvious side effects an agent cannot get from structured fields, and they are stated precisely.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then cascading effects, then lifecycle, then the failure condition. Every sentence carries distinct information and none repeats the name or annotations.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation's scope, its downstream effects on brands, the soft-delete window, and the error case. There is no return-value explanation needed since no output schema exists, and nothing material about calling it correctly 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% for the single segment_id parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no format, range, or lookup guidance for segment_id, so the baseline 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+resource ("Delete a segment") and immediately scopes the effect on attached brands, so an agent can tell it apart from attach/detach-brand-to-segment-tool or update-segment-tool. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from behavior rather than stated.

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?

It gives a clear precondition for invocation — a project must keep at least one segment, so deleting the last one errors out — which is exactly the kind of when-not guidance that prevents a bad call. It does not name an alternative tool or say when to prefer a soft-removal/update path instead.

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