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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not state that the deletion is permanent, whether the endpoint/draft must be in a particular state, or what happens to step ordering after removal.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity comes partly at the cost of the missing details noted in other dimensions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a destructive three-identifier mutation the definition is incomplete: no parameter semantics, no preconditions, and no usage routing. The structured fields alone do not cover what an agent needs before calling it.

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?

All three required parameters (apiId, stepId, endpointId) have 0% schema description coverage and are not mentioned at all in the description. For a tool whose identifiers span three hierarchy levels, the description does nothing to clarify which IDs are needed or how they relate.

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 names a specific verb (delete), a specific resource (structured step), and its container (API draft endpoint), which cleanly separates it from step_create, step_update, and step_reorder. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the verb alone is unambiguous here.

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?

There is no guidance on when to delete versus reorder or update a step, no prerequisites (e.g. draft state, endpoint must exist), and no warning that this is the irreversible option among the step_* family. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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