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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the details that actually matter: the Undo copy is destroyed too, the effect is permanent, and the agent is instructed to tell the user it cannot be undone before proceeding. Permission scoping (owner/team admin, PRO+) and the mandatory confirmation step are context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive action and its irreversibility, with the confirmation requirement placed last as the immediate pre-call step. The warning is stated twice in close succession ('REAL ACTION, not a preview' and 'deleted for good; say it cannot be undone'), which is defensible emphasis for a destructive tool but slightly 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 one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this covers what an agent needs: what is deleted, who may do it, that it is irreversible, and the confirmation gate. Nothing required for a correct, safe invocation 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?

There is one parameter and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, including the 'omit for the default business' rule. The description never mentions businessProfileId, so it adds nothing beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 with unusual precision: it deletes the Estimates prices *and their Undo copy*, which is what separates it from a plain price update or an undo. An agent reading only this line knows exactly what object is being cleared and what the resulting state is.

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 prerequisites (Owner or team admin; PRO and above) and an explicit pre-call workflow (show the exact change, get explicit confirmation). It also contrasts with a preview path via 'REAL ACTION, not a preview', implicitly routing away from the try/preview sibling, though it never names estimates_try, estimates_undo, or estimates_update_prices as alternatives.

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