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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the call itself mutates nothing, it returns a preview plus a confirmation link, and only the merchant on that page can complete the deletion. That is valuable for a destructiveHint=true tool. It sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint=false, but is best read as describing a two-phase confirm pattern rather than contradicting the annotation.

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?

The core behavior is front-loaded and the confirmation caveat is well placed. But the money/cents sentence is a stray artifact from an unrelated template and earns no place here, diluting an otherwise tight four-sentence description.

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 no output schema, the description usefully explains what a call returns (a preview and a confirmation link) and who can act on it. It still omits what the preview contains, what happens to the routine's history after confirmation, and any failure modes, but it is largely sufficient for a single-parameter deletion trigger.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema ("The routine's title or id."), so the schema carries the burden and baseline 3 applies. The description says nothing about the routine parameter, and its one parameter-adjacent sentence ("Money is integer minor units (cents)") is irrelevant to a tool with no monetary input, adding noise instead of meaning.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource ("Stop a routine") that maps cleanly to routines_delete. However, it never distinguishes this from sibling routines_update or routines_list, so an agent must infer the boundary. "For good" is informal but conveys permanence.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as routines_update (which may also stop/deactivate a routine). The two-step confirmation flow is described, but not the conditions under which an agent should pick this tool over its siblings.

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