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

The annotations only indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description adds valuable behavioral detail: submission records are anchored to the source form and are NOT deleted, historical reports fall back to source text, and the primary language cannot be removed through this tool. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure that helps an agent predict real-world impact.

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 make the core action, the critical side effects, and the primary-language restriction very clear. Nothing is redundant, and the most important behavioral caveat about submissions is placed early.

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?

This is a small tool with two well-documented parameters and destructive semantics. The description fully covers what gets deleted, what does not get deleted, what happens to historical reports, and which language is off-limits. No material information needed to invoke the tool safely is missing.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters and the language enum, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter-level context by confirming that the language parameter refers to a translation version and that the primary language is not a valid candidate for this deletion.

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 one language version (translation) of a form. It also distinguishes this from deleting the whole form by noting the primary language cannot be deleted this way, which helps an agent differentiate it from delete_form.

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 gives a clear usage context: deleting a translation while preserving submission records, and it explicitly excludes the primary language. It does not explicitly name delete_form as the alternative for removing the primary language, but the phrase 'it lives on the form itself' makes that route reasonably clear.

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