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

Goes well beyond the provided annotations (destructiveHint=true) by disclosing that deletion may cascade to related records, that nothing changes until a human approves the exact request in Settings > MCP, and that business workflow approvals always apply. These are consequences an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first two sentences and the approval caveat is placed after. The model is slightly repetitive, restating approval configurability twice ('subject to configured MCP approval rules' and 'MCP approval requirements are configurable by the organization administrator').

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 tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers the critical unknowns: approval gating, cascade side effects, and administrative configurability. The only real omission is what the required id refers to and whether the id must be fetched via get_rfi/list_rfis first.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for the single 'id' parameter — it never says it is the RFI UUID or where to obtain it. The schema's uuid format partially covers this, but the description does not compensate for the gap.

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+resource ('Delete rfi') and scopes it to RetailHardHat rfis records in the connected organization. It is distinguishable from get_rfi/update_rfi/list_rfis by name, though it never explicitly separates itself from delete_rfi_comment, the closest sibling.

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?

'Use this when working with RetailHardHat rfis records' is implied usage rather than a when-to-use rule, and no alternative (archive vs delete, delete_rfi_comment) is named. It does give real operational guidance in that the call is inert until approval and execute_approved_action, which partially compensates.

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