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

Beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: the required permission scope and that this removes a button/action definition. It does not contradict annotations; it simply does not discuss side effects such as cascading removal or missing-key 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?

The definition is short and front-loads the operation, followed by permission information and search keywords. The trailing bilingual keyword list is somewhat incidental, but it does not bloat the definition.

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 delete with full annotations and a documented schema, the description provides enough context: operation, object, and authorization. It omits some edge-case behavior, but the annotations and schema already cover the main safety profile.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single 'key' parameter documented as 'Schluessel der Actiondef'. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond that schema coverage, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Actiondef loeschen' (delete action definition), and adds 'Button entfernen' to clarify the object. It is clearly a deletion operation, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as onto_actiondef_save or onto_actiondef_list.

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?

It states the required authorization ('Scope-Manager/Schreiber', can_manage_scope/can_write), which tells the agent the prerequisite for using it. It does not spell out when-not to use it or explicitly compare it with siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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