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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the danger profile is covered structurally. The description adds two pieces of context not in the annotations: the deletion is of an entire locale, and it is gated behind the Build plan — real prerequisite information. It stops short of describing cascade effects on translated content or recoverability.

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 short sentences, front-loading the action and then the prerequisite. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the 100%-covered two-parameter schema is self-documenting. The plan prerequisite is covered, but the description never states what happens to content already translated into that locale, which is the main residual ambiguity for a destructive tool.

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%, with both courseId and translationId documented in the schema itself (including the 'not its locale code' caveat). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Deletes a locale entirely'), which distinguishes it from sibling deletes like delete_course or delete_block. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the resource is unambiguous given the input schema's translationId.

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?

Adds one concrete prerequisite — 'Requires the Build plan or higher' — which is genuinely useful gating context. However, it offers no guidance on when to delete vs. update_translation, or whether callers should verify with get_translation/list_translations first.

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