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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavioral details: submission records are anchored to the source form and not deleted, and reports for historical records in the deleted language fall back to source text. It also notes the primary language cannot be deleted, which is a significant constraint. These go beyond the annotations and inform the agent of side effects.

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 with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, the behavioral consequences are stated concisely, and the constraint about the primary language is clear. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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 simple delete operation with an output schema present and annotations covering destructiveness, the description covers the key caveats: submissions are preserved, reports fall back, and primary language is excluded. It does not address potential errors (e.g., deleting a nonexistent language) or idempotency, but these are minor for this tool's complexity. Overall it is nearly complete.

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 schema descriptions for both formId and language are sufficient (100% coverage). The description does not add extra parameter semantics; it only restates that a language is being deleted and mentions the primary language restriction, which is not directly tied to the parameter details. Baseline 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?

States the action clearly: 'Delete one language version (translation) of a form.' The resource is specific (a translation of a form), and it distinguishes itself from deleting the whole form (delete_form) and from other translation tools (create/update/get) by focusing on removal. It also clarifies the primary language cannot be deleted, which further scopes the purpose.

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 description provides context for when to use this tool by stating what it deletes (a translation, not the source) and that the primary language cannot be deleted this way. It implies that other tools handle the primary language or whole form deletion, but does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_form or update_form_translation. This is clear but not fully explicit about when not to use it.

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