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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description correctly doesn't repeat the mutation warning. It adds genuine value beyond the annotations with the 'deleting the last one is allowed (a form can be an empty shell)' edge case, which prevents an agent from assuming a minimum-item guard exists.

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?

Two sentences, roughly 30 words, fully front-loaded: action and scope in the first sentence, the one critical edge case in the second. Every sentence earns its place and nothing repeats schema or annotation content.

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?

Complete for a low-complexity tool: both required parameters are fully described in the schema, destructiveHint covers the safety profile, and an output schema covers return values. The only behaviors an agent needs to call it correctly — what can be deleted, by which identifier, and the last-item allowance — are all 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one meaningful clarification: 'by code' confirms the code parameter is the deletion identifier, and it corrects the schema's narrow 'question' wording by revealing that code may reference breakers and display blocks as well as questions.

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 (Delete) and resource ('a single item from a form'), then disambiguates the resource by enumerating the three deletable item types (question, Breaker, Statement/Swiper). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete_form (whole form) and from the question-management siblings (add_question, insert_question, update_question, move_question).

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 usage scope is clear: single-item deletion within a form, with the admissible item types enumerated so an agent knows the tool is not limited to questions. It implicitly contrasts with delete_form (whole-form deletion) via the 'single item from a form' phrasing, though it never names the alternative or states an explicit when-not condition.

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