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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it reveals the deletion is a reversible soft-delete (status=deleted), warns that dependent rules invoked via run_function will break, and names the authorization scope. This is exactly the kind of impact/auth context the destructiveHint annotation alone cannot convey.

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-loads the action and the most surprising fact (soft-delete, reversible), then the warning, then permissions. Slightly cluttered by the trailing EN keyword list for retrieval, but the prose sentences are dense and waste-free.

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 single-param mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers reversibility, side effects, and authorization — everything needed to call it safely. Minor gap: no note on how to undo the soft-delete or which tool restores it.

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 there is a single required param (udid) whose format is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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+resource ("RECHENREGEL loeschen" = delete the function/computational rule) and immediately qualifies it as a soft-delete via status=deleted. Names sibling tools (run_function, onto_trigger_index) in a way that distinguishes this operation from executing or inspecting functions.

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 concrete pre-flight guidance (check onto_trigger_index to see who consumes the rule) and states the required permission (can_manage_scope). It doesn't contrast delete against sibling operations like onto_function_update (e.g., when to disable vs delete), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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