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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does so well: it discloses irreversibility and mandates a human-approval workflow. It stops short of stating permission/scope requirements or what happens to related data (campaigns, connections) when an agent is removed.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the irreversible nature and the approval gate front-loaded before any elaboration. Every clause earns its place.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the critical operational context (permanence + approval workflow). It could be more complete by noting permission requirements or cascading side effects, but nothing essential 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 0% and the single 'id' parameter is undocumented, but the tool name makes its referent (agent id) unambiguous in context. The description adds no format, type, or lookup guidance beyond that inference.

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 ('delete an agent') and front-loads the key scope constraint ('Permanently... NOT reversible'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling preview_delete_agent and from archive_campaign, which implies recoverable archival rather than deletion.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite sibling ('only call after the user has reviewed preview_delete_agent output') and the approval condition required to proceed. This is a complete when-to-use gate rather than implied context.

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