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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description explains why: the tool 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns screens, buttons and fields to follow. This is valuable context beyond the annotations, since the 'Delete' name would otherwise suggest a write operation. It omits any warning that the downstream browser-driven deletion is irreversible and what authorizations the user must hold.

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 front-loaded sentence states the action, followed by the return format and execution path, then API pricing context. The API add-on sentence is lengthy relative to its relevance but does carry cost/availability information. No filler or repetition.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned ('step by step (screens, buttons, fields)') and how the action is completed afterwards, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. The one meaningful gap is the absence of a caution that the resulting deletion is permanent and applies to a real client record.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 specific verb and resource ('Delete a client in the user's own Exercise.com account'), which is distinguishable from the sibling about pending client invitations. It also clarifies that the tool itself only returns instructions rather than performing the deletion, which is a non-obvious and important purpose detail. It stops short of explicitly naming any sibling for contrast.

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?

Clear operational routing: call this tool to get the step-by-step procedure, then execute it with the 'cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Exercise.com Cloud Browser'. It also flags the official API as a paid add-on, giving the agent enough to understand the automation route versus the API route. It does not state when-not to use it (e.g., account-owner permissions or whether deletion is reversible).

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