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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but they do not say what is destroyed; the description fills that gap by clarifying that only the view is removed and objects/fields survive. It adds no detail about permission requirements or what happens to existing interface mappings (there is a sibling onto_interface_map_markers), which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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 key scoping constraint is front-loaded in the second sentence, and each sentence carries information. The trailing '| EN: onto, interface, delete, def' keyword tag is redundant noise that does not earn its place but is minor.

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, the description covers scope of destruction, a precondition check, and an alternative sibling, which is close to sufficient. It could mention effects on interface mappings or required rights to be fully complete.

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% for the single def_id parameter, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for def_id, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ('Eine Interface-Definition entfernen') and immediately scopes what is removed versus preserved ('Entfernt die Sicht, NICHT die Objekte oder Felder'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling onto_property_def_delete, so an agent can choose correctly without opening either 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?

It gives a concrete precondition ('Pruefe vorher, ob Objekttypen das Interface verwenden') and routes single-field removal to onto_property_def_delete. It stops short of explicitly naming the when-not case for related siblings such as onto_interface_update_def or onto_object_delete, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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