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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true and a title; the description carries the real behavioral load: it runs as a preview by default and only deletes with { confirm: true }, it refuses to remove resources that were merely updated, and it can sweep auto-created contacts produced by enrollment or tracking. That is exactly the destructive-safety context an agent needs before calling a mutation tool.

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 sentences, each earning its place: scope, exclusions, preview/confirm mechanics, and the recommended usage moment. The destructive preview default is front-loaded relative to the usage advice, and there is no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain the preview payload, and it covers everything else: scope limits, safety behavior, and when to invoke. An agent has all it needs to call this destructive tool correctly without surprising deletions.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema with the same semantics the description restates ('preview by default', confirm:true). The description adds the useful nuance that kinds omitted means 'everything this server created', but otherwise duplicates the schema rather than extending it. Baseline 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 a specific verb (remove) and an explicit, enumerated resource set (templates, segments, workflows, webhook endpoints, campaign drafts, auto-created contacts), and pins the scope to 'YOU created ... through this MCP server.' It implicitly separates itself from volanea_delete_resource by declaring exactly what it can and cannot touch, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear context ('Use this at the end of an integration session so a production project isn't left holding your scaffolding') and a strong when-not boundary (human-made or REST-API resources and merely-updated resources are never touched). It never names the obvious alternative, volanea_delete_resource, for removing individual resources, so routing guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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