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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new context: cascading/dependent-record effects and the approval model (org-configurable MCP approvals plus always-applicable business workflow approvals). This goes beyond what the annotations provide, though it does not detail exactly what state is destroyed.

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, action front-loaded, no filler. The first clause is slightly redundant with the tool name, but overall it is efficiently packed.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds the dependency and approval context a destructive tool needs; only the id parameter semantics remain unaddressed.

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 required id parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. The UUID format is only conveyed by the schema; the description does not clarify that the id refers to the diligence field to be deleted or any constraint on it.

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 opening states a specific verb (Delete) and resource (diligence_field), which distinguishes it from nearby siblings like delete_diligence_tab and update_diligence_field. The first sentence essentially restates the tool name, but the resource specificness keeps it from being pure tautology.

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?

It advises reviewing dependent records before confirming, which is a caution rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no routing to alternatives (e.g., update_diligence_field for modification, delete_diligence_tab for a different object) and no explicit condition for selecting this tool.

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