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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the addressing mode, not behavioral context such as whether deletion cascades to related mock state or whether it is recoverable. Adequate but not rich beyond the annotations.

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, zero filler, with the identification rule front-loaded and the routing advice second. 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?

No output schema exists, but for a destructive mutation whose annotations already state destructiveness and idempotency, the description supplies the addressing rule and the sibling routing an agent actually needs. It stops short of describing consequences of deletion, which would have pushed it higher.

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 all four parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description does add one thing the schema cannot express cleanly: that endpoint_id and the method+route pair are mutually exclusive alternatives ('Omit to identify it by method and route'), which is genuinely useful. However, workspace is never mentioned, so the added value is partial.

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 (delete) and resource (one endpoint), and immediately distinguishes itself from the look-alike sibling delete_resource. An agent can select this tool without opening any 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?

Explicitly names the alternative (delete_resource) and the condition that selects it (removing a resource's generated CRUD routes). The dual-identification rule ('endpoint_id or method and route') also tells the agent how to target the call in either scenario.

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