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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructive/idempotent/not read-only) by disclosing the last-version guard, the per-scope authorization model, the CONFLICT semantics for a stale expectedWorkspaceRevision, and NOT_FOUND for unreadable versions. These are the exact behavioral traits an agent needs before attempting a destructive call.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the core rule (delete one version, except the last) comes first, followed by permissions and concurrency. The telegraphic fragments ('Standalone: the owner.') are efficient but slightly strain readability.

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 destructive operation with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, authorization, constraints, and failure modes. Nothing material is missing for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including `why` being required for workspace items and expectedWorkspaceRevision's CONFLICT behavior. The description restates these ('with why', 'expectedWorkspaceRevision is optional and refuses...') but adds no new syntax, format, or edge-case meaning.

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 and resource ('Delete one version by its own id') and clarifies that versionId identifies the artifact, which distinguishes it from artifact_delete (whole artifact) and artifact_versions_prune. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 when/who guidance: standalone artifacts require the owner, workspace artifacts require internal admins or editors plus a `why`, and the last remaining version cannot be deleted. It lacks an explicit contrast with bulk alternatives like artifact_versions_prune, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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