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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing the cascade behavior (batches become unassigned rather than deleted) and the public-history side effect of deleting a shipped delivery.

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 core action and followed immediately by the two consequences that matter. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 tool whose safety hints are already in annotations and which has no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral surprises. It stops just short of routing to a reversible alternative such as archive_delivery, which would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no meaning about the identifier (format, source, where to obtain it), which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the work.

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 and resource ('Delete a delivery') that is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like delete_delivery_presentation or archive_delivery, so the agent must infer the distinction from names alone.

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 caveat about deleting a shipped delivery rewrites public history implies caution and therefore shapes when it is appropriate to call. But it never names the alternative (e.g., archive_delivery for reversible removal) or states an explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use condition.

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