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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context not in the annotations: 'QR codes already made from it keep working', clarifying the non-cascading impact on related resources. It omits irreversibility and permission requirements, so not a 5.

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 terse sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the side-effect clarification follows naturally. 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 delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the resource and the non-cascading effect. It could still note that template deletion itself is irreversible or what permission is needed, so it is not fully complete.

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 one parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description would need to compensate. 'Delete a QR template' implicitly identifies the id as a template identifier, which is minimal but consistent with the schema's uuid format. It adds no syntax or format detail beyond that inference.

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 QR template'), making the operation unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling qrs_delete by naming the 'QR template' entity. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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 description says what the tool does but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and names no alternative (e.g., qrs_delete for individual codes, or templates_update if removal is the wrong intent). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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