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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical trait: deletion is permanent and cascades to all rules and request logs. It omits remnants like required permissions, irreversibility confirmation, or error behavior on an unknown ID.

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 short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the permanence warning before the cascade detail. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what is removed and that it cannot be undone. It stops short of confirming return/error behavior or permission prerequisites.

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 description coverage is 100%, so projectId and mockId are already documented in the schema. The description only hints at the project scoping relationship and adds no format or constraint meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Permanently delete a mock API endpoint from a project') with clear scope. It is readily distinguishable from siblings like delete_project, update_mock, or remove_mock_rule without opening any 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?

The word 'Permanently' signals this is a destructive action rather than an update, which implies usage. However, it never names alternatives (e.g., update_mock to modify, remove_mock_rule to drop only rules) or states when deletion is inappropriate.

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