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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description goes beyond them by explaining the partial-deletion behavior: it reports what was actually removed, which can be fewer than requested. This adds useful context about already-gone identities without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and capacity are front-loaded, and the important edge case about already-removed identities is stated efficiently.

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?

Given the output schema, full parameter schema coverage, and annotations covering destructive and idempotent behavior, the description provides the remaining key behavioral detail (reported actual removals). Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the schema already explains ids and externalIds. The description loosely restates 'by our ids or by your own externalIds' but does not add substantially new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action ('Deletes up to 500 learners in one call'), identifies the resource (learners/identities), and names both id modes ('our ids or your own externalIds'). This is clearly distinguishable from the singular delete_identity sibling and from bulk_upsert_identities.

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 description clearly frames the tool as a batch operation for deleting up to 500 identities at once, which conveys the primary use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_identity for single deletions, so it lacks explicit if-then routing, but the bulk context is clear.

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