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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds useful context beyond them: dependent-record effects should be reviewed, and approvals may be required depending on MCP and business workflow configuration. It does not specify exactly what dependent records are affected or whether deletion is irreversible, so the disclosure is helpful but not fully concrete.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the destructive action before the cautionary and approval information. The approval sentence is somewhat administrative, but it is relevant to whether the deletion can proceed and therefore 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 destructive one-parameter delete tool with annotations covering safety hints and an output schema present, the description supplies the key missing behavioral context: dependency review and approval requirements. It could be more complete by naming dependent record types or stating irreversibility, but nothing essential for invocation is absent.

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 only one parameter, 'id', and the schema provides its name, UUID format, and pattern, so the schema itself is mostly self-explanatory. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain what the identifier refers to or how to obtain it. With one simple identifier parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete milestone.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling update, get, list, or create milestone tools. It stops short of differentiating from the closely named delete_milestone_column, so it is clear but lacks explicit sibling routing.

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 sentence 'Review dependent-record effects before confirming' implies caution before invoking a destructive operation, but it does not say when to choose this tool over update_milestone or delete_milestone_column. No alternatives or explicit when-not conditions are given.

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