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

The description explicitly states 'Permanently delete... This cannot be undone', a clearly destructive, irreversible operation, yet the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This directly contradicts the structured safety signal and could mislead an agent into treating an irreversible deletion as safe. The otherwise useful context (confirmation default, API key requirement) cannot offset the contradiction.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action, but its first two sentences are redundant ('Permanently delete a step and its page from a funnel. Deletes one step and its page from a funnel.'), restating the same fact. The confirmation and API-key notes are useful but the duplication wastes space.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, visitor impact, confirmation behavior, and auth requirements. Only the failure to reconcile its destructive nature with the annotation leaves a gap for correct invocation.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents step_id and its origin ('Funnel step ID from list_funnel_steps'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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/remove) and resource (a funnel step and its page), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_funnel_steps and duplicate_funnel_step. An agent knows exactly what this does 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?

The description gives operational guidance about confirmation defaults and the user-confirmation requirement, but it does not explain when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., list_funnel_steps to obtain the step_id, or duplicate_funnel_step). Usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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