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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that this is a destructive write. The description adds the specific resource (article paragraph) and the operation, but it discloses no additional behavioral details such as irreversibility, cascading effects, or required permissions. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 redundant: 'Delete paragraph.' repeats the tool name, and the 'Guidance' line restates the purpose and then lists parameters already explained in the schema. The 'context' field is clutter. A single clear sentence would suffice. This is not concise; it wastes words.

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 simple delete operation with only two required parameters and a destructive annotation, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent exactly what is deleted (one article paragraph) and the schema provides parameter provenance. It does not mention any side effects or prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 input schema describes both parameters (id and paragraph_id) with their origins and types, achieving 100% coverage. The description merely repeats the parameter names in the 'context' line without adding any new meaning or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline 3 is correct.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Delete one article paragraph by paragraph id.' It distinguishes the tool from whole-article deletion (cms_delete_article) and other paragraph types by specifying 'article paragraph'. While it does not explicitly name sibling tools, the scope is unambiguous and self-contained.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for deleting a single paragraph from an article, nor does it exclude cases like deleting an entire article or paragraphs from other content types. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and context.

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