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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description goes far beyond that: it discloses the staged deletion path, the return payloads for both modes, the rollback possibility via list_config_revisions and rollback_config, error conditions, and the edit-access requirement. This rich behavioral context fully complements the annotations and contradicts none of them.

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 a single dense paragraph but each sentence adds value: modes, returns, rollback, errors, access. It is front-loaded with the primary action and then details. Slightly long but no filler; it earns its length given the complexity of the two-mode behavior.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description explains return values for both modes, error scenarios, and prerequisites (edit access). It covers the necessary information for an agent to call it correctly. Minor omissions: it doesn't specify what 'targets' includes or what happens if the endpoint is already deleted, but error handling covers the latter. Overall, fairly complete.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description reinforces that commitMode defaults to publish and draft writes require draftRevision, but this is already stated in the schema. It does add the semantic that deletion affects 'targets', but that is not parameter-specific. No additional parameter meaning beyond the schema is provided, so a 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?

The description states a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('endpoint and its targets'), and distinguishes between immediate and staged deletion via commitMode. It clearly separates this from siblings like update_endpoint and discard_draft_endpoint by explaining the two modes and the draft behavior.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use immediate vs staged deletion (draft mode with commitMode and draftRevision). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the mode distinction is a clear usage guideline. Missing exclusionary guidance for siblings like discard_draft_endpoint is a minor gap.

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