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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that deletion is permanent ('cannot be undone') and cascades to associated data, which is the critical behavioral trait for a delete tool. It does not address authentication or return values, but the core destructive behavior is well-covered.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Permanently delete') and includes the key warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 parameter set (2 required, fully described in schema), no output schema, and no nested objects, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the tool's full effect and irreversible nature, making it complete for an agent to select 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for targetId and confirm. The parameter purposes are obvious from the schema, so no extra compensation is needed.

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 clearly states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'target', and specifies the scope by enumerating associated data (runs, findings, incidents, artifacts). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like update_target or create_target.

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 implies destructive, permanent usage but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of 'use update_target to modify' or 'consider list_targets before deletion', so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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