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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the non-obvious consequence (generated tasks survive deletion) and a real side effect ('An owner-level change: Sergio tells the owner after it is made'), which the annotations do not convey. It does not say whether the deletion is reversible or what happens to in-flight scans, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and its consequence before the alternative and the retry rule. The phrase 'as Delete in its editor does' is slightly vague and arguably redundant with 'Deletes a Scanner,' a minor inefficiency but not noise.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation this covers what matters: what is destroyed, what survives, the non-destructive alternative, retry semantics, and the owner notification. The remaining gap is reversibility and the fate of in-flight scans, which an agent might reasonably need before committing.

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 67% and the schema itself documents idempotency_key and reason in detail. The description only restates the idempotency retry rule and says nothing about the 'reason' parameter, so it adds little meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries most of the parameter semantics.

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 ('Deletes a Scanner') and immediately clarifies the consequence that distinguishes it from other removal-looking actions: pending/running scans stop but 'the tasks it already made stay.' It is clearly separable from sibling mutators like edit_scanner or set_scanner_on.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the alternative path: 'To pause it instead, use set_scanner_on with enabled false,' naming the sibling and the condition that selects it. It also gives a retry rule ('Pass the same idempotency_key when retrying'), so both the use/avoid decision and the call pattern are covered.

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