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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint) by enumerating exactly what is destroyed (the question's own answers), the non-obvious side effect of positional Q{n} renumbering for all later questions, which logic rules break and how they surface in logic.errors, the server-side re-read verification, and the required edit-survey right.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and constrained by a single dense paragraph with numbered consequences; almost every sentence carries new information. The Q5→Q4 renumbering detail is arguably deeper than an agent needs pre-call, but nothing is truly redundant.

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, non-idempotent mutation with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers consequences, preview semantics, auth requirements, and downstream repair paths. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by spelling out what the confirm:false preview actually contains (response count, dependent logic rules, remaining question count) and reinforcing the 'only after explicit user agreement' condition for confirm:true.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Deletes a question from a survey") and immediately differentiates itself from sibling delete tools (delete_survey_page, delete_survey_response) by stating that other questions' collected data is unaffected. An agent knows exactly what is deleted and at what granularity.

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?

Explicitly defines the two invocation modes: omitted/false confirm returns a read-only preview of consequences; confirm:true performs the delete. It also routes the agent onward to get_survey for new naming and to add_display_logic_rule / add_jump_logic_rule for repairing broken logic.

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