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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Soft-delete', indicating non-permanent deletion, and lists return fields (success, device_id, message) plus an example. This adds valuable context beyond a simple 'delete' term, though it does not address permissions or recoverability nuances beyond the soft-delete label.

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 description is compact and well-structured with clear sections (definition, WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, EXAMPLE). The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and each subsequent section provides justifiable detail without redundancy. It is an ideal length for a single-parameter tool.

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-parameter delete tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential context: use scenarios, return values, and a usage example. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though it could briefly elaborate on the implications of soft-delete (e.g., whether the device remains visible in list_devices).

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?

The schema fully describes device_id as 'Your internal device identifier to delete' with length constraints, so the baseline for parameter semantics is met. The description's example uses a concrete identifier but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema. There is no ambiguity introduced.

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 'Soft-delete a device from the partner account', which clearly identifies the action and resource. The 'soft-delete' nuance adds specificity beyond just 'delete', and the WHEN TO USE list further clarifies its scope. This distinguishes it from other tools in the same domain, such as delete_webhook.

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?

The WHEN TO USE section provides three concrete scenarios (decommissioned devices, test cleanup, relocation) that give explicit context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or cite alternatives like a hard-delete or re-registration tool, so it lacks full exclusion or alternative guidance.

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