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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds beyond that: permanence, the reversibility workaround, and timing ('Takes effect on the next run'). It stops short of saying what happens if the rule id is unknown or whether the call is idempotent.

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, zero waste, with the destructive action and the safer alternative front-loaded. Every sentence carries distinct information: action, risk/alternative, timing.

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 delete with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this is nearly complete — the agent knows what it destroys, the alternative, and when it takes effect. Minor gaps: behavior on nonexistent ruleId and whether any return value confirms deletion.

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 both params (feedId, ruleId) are documented with sourcing hints (list_feeds, list_rules) in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond 'by id', 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 with scope ('Delete one rule by id'), immediately telling the agent it operates on a single rule rather than a list or feed. The permanent-destruction framing distinguishes it from set_rule_enabled and from the read/list siblings.

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 names the alternative ('prefer set_rule_enabled with enabled=false') and the condition that selects it ('when the human might want the rule back'). This is a clear when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-that directive, not just implied context.

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