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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by detailing the destruction scope (files, preview, data copy) and explicitly excluding the lambda. It does not mention irreversibility or confirmation requirements, which would have made it a 5.

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?

Three short sentences; the scope of destruction is front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct information (what is deleted, what is spared, when to use it). No filler.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient: it clarifies destruction scope, the lambda carve-out, and intent. Only a note on irreversibility or required authorization is missing.

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% for both parameters ('The feature.', 'The editor key.'), so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description adds no format or selection guidance for 'feature' or 'privateKey', leaving the baseline 3 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 gives a concrete verb ('throw a feature away') and enumerates exactly what is removed: files, preview, and the data copy. It also states a boundary ('the lambda is not touched'), which helps distinguish it from delete_file and delete_lambda-style operations, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'For a feature the user does not want after all' implies the use case but states no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It gives a soft when-to-use signal while leaving the agent to infer how this differs from delete_file.

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