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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the crucial cascade scope (all custom collections in the deck are destroyed), the explicit non-effect ('does not delete the original stream posts'), and a hard precondition (last deck is undeletable). This is exactly the beyond-annotation context the dimension rewards.

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, each load-bearing: scope, precondition, non-effect, alternative. The destructive scope is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the destructive cascade, the exception case, and the safer sibling. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the schema itself documents 'id' as the Deck ID from list_stream_decks. The description adds no format, validation, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already states, 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 (delete) plus resource (stream deck) and immediately scopes it: owned by the signed-in user, and every custom collection inside it. An agent can distinguish it from delete_collection, delete_stream, and delete_ai_filter 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 an explicit when-not (the last remaining deck cannot be deleted) and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it: 'Use delete_collection to remove one collection and keep the deck.' Routing is fully determined.

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