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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it stresses this is a REAL ACTION rather than a preview, and that the receptionist stops using the deleted Q&A — a downstream effect not encoded in any structured field. It stops short of stating reversibility or error behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then the destructive warning, then the confirmation workflow. 'Name the exact question' is mildly redundant with the confirmation sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers what is destroyed, the downstream effect, and the required user-confirmation step. Missing only failure-mode detail (e.g. behavior when questionId no longer exists) which is minor.

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% and each of the three parameters (agentId, questionId, businessProfileId) has a detailed description including defaulting behavior and failure/retry guidance. The description only adds 'by questionId', so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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 (delete), the exact resource (one Business Profile question and its answer), and the keying parameter (questionId). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling business_qa_create/update/list 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?

Gives a clear precondition for use: 'Right before calling, show the user the exact change and get their explicit confirmation', plus the need to name the exact question. It does not explicitly route to alternatives (e.g. business_qa_update for edits instead of removal), so it falls short of a full 5.

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