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

The description merely restates the destructive nature already declared by annotations (destructiveHint: true). It adds no new behavioral context such as permanence, cascading effects, or failure conditions. Since annotations cover the destructive hint, the description contributes minimal value.

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?

A single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. No wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple 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?

Given the simple nature (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the purpose and the parameter. It could mention side effects, but for a delete operation with destructiveHint, it's sufficient. Missing explicit 'permanent' but implied.

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 input schema already documents the 'id' parameter with a clear description. The description's 'by id' adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is 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?

States the verb 'Deletes' and the resource 'course', distinguishing it from other delete_* tools by resource. The method 'by id' is clear. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. While the resource name distinguishes it, the description provides no usage context.

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