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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral constraint not present in annotations: deletion is blocked for batches that still contain works, which is meaningful operational context.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key constraint. No filler, no repetition, and every sentence earns its place.

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 rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the main failure precondition. It omits details like whether deletion is permanent or what errors are returned, but those are minor given the annotation coverage.

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 (id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds nothing about the id parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies when structured data 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a batch'), so the operation is unambiguous, but it largely restates the tool name/title and does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings such as revert_batch or delete_work. The resource name carries the differentiation rather than the prose.

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?

The second sentence gives a usable precondition ('Batches that still have works can't be deleted'), which implies when the call will fail. However, there is no guidance on alternatives (revert_batch to undo, archive workflows instead) or on when to prefer another sibling, leaving usage mostly implied.

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