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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the baseline is covered. The description adds valuable context: it mentions the destructive scope ('its targets'), the timing ('publishing the removal immediately'), and auth requirement ('Requires edit access'). However, it overstates immediacy without qualifying that commitMode=draft would defer publication, which is a minor omission given the schema clarifies this.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every clause adds value: the operation, scope, immediacy, and access requirement. This is a model of concise, efficient writing.

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?

Given the simple nature of a delete operation, the combination of annotations (destructive hint), full schema documentation, and the description (scope, timing, auth) provides a complete picture. The only nuance about draft mode is visible in the schema, so the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 (lineKey, endpointId, commitMode, draftRevision) are already fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete'), the resource ('an endpoint'), and the scope ('and its targets'). It also specifies the immediate effect ('publishing the removal immediately'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like discard_draft_endpoint or update_endpoint. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context by mentioning the prerequisite 'Requires edit access' and the immediate publishing behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like discard_draft_endpoint or draft commit mode. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, but the core context is adequate.

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