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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description still adds real value: it explains the visible outcome on embedded sites (empty widget rather than a broken embed) and that accounts and review sources survive the deletion. It never states that the deletion is irreversible or what the call returns, which keeps it below 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, action front-loaded, with the risky-confirm rule before the side-effect notes. The phrasing is slightly telegraphic ("a site that still has its code") but no sentence 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 two-parameter destructive tool with a fully described schema, this covers the confirmation gate, the embed-site outcome, and preserved related data. Missing only reversibility and the response shape, which matter for a delete operation.

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%, so both params are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description merely restates the confirm rule already in the schema's confirm description; its only marginal addition is the instruction to ask the user first.

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?

"Deletes a widget" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the widget resource is clearly distinct from sibling delete tools like delete_review and delete_campaign. It stops short of any scope statement (permanent? cascade?) that would raise it to a 5.

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 description states a concrete precondition: if the widget had views in the last 7 days the agent must pass confirm: true and ask the user first. That is explicit when/how guidance, but no alternatives (e.g., update_widget to disable instead) are mentioned.

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