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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the blocking rule about batches containing works, which is useful context. It omits whether the deletion is permanent/reversible and what happens to dependent works or deliveries.

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, verb first, then the precondition. No filler, no restatement of the title, and every sentence carries a distinct fact.

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 single-parameter delete with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is the absence of routing to revert_batch as the non-destructive alternative and any statement about permanence of the deletion.

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?

Only one parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail about the id beyond what the schema provides; 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Delete a batch") with a clear precondition. It doesn't differentiate itself from the sibling revert_batch, which is a non-destructive alternative for batches, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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 precondition "Batches that still have works can't be deleted" is a real usage constraint that prevents wasted calls. However, there is no guidance on when to delete versus revert an existing batch, nor on whether the id must first be archived or in a particular state.

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