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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds real context beyond them: admin privilege requirement, a mandatory reviewed preview step, and that approval requirements are configurable while business workflow approvals always apply. It stops short of saying whether the deletion is hard or reversible and what happens to dependent records.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the disambiguation that matters most, and every clause carries information. The closing sentence on MCP approval configurability is somewhat boilerplate-heavy but still relevant to the caller.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers the essential prerequisites (admin role, reviewed preview, approvals). Remaining unknowns such as cascade effects are secondary given the structured fields already present.

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?

The single 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage; the schema supplies only type/format/pattern, not meaning. The description implies the identifier refers to a target location and that a preview must be reviewed first, but it never explains how to obtain a valid id or what the preview step looks like in practice.

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 desired Target Location / expansion market') and immediately differentiates it from the nearest confusable sibling with 'not a site'. An agent can distinguish it from delete_site without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear preconditions (organization admin, an exact reviewed preview) and implicitly routes site removal to delete_site via 'not a site'. It does not spell out when a caller should use update_target_location instead or what to do if a preview has not been reviewed, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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