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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'Deletes' is consistent. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—no mention of irreversibility, side effects on product, or whether it is a hard delete. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds minimal value.

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: 'Deletes a specific description paragraph.' is repeated in the 'Guidance' part. The pipe-separated context line is unstructured and adds no new information. The text is short but wasteful due to duplication, so it is not well-optimized.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention what happens on success (e.g., no return value), whether the deletion is permanent, or any prerequisites. However, given the annotations and simple nature, the tool is still callable correctly. It could benefit from stating that the paragraph is permanently removed.

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%, with both parameters fully described in the input schema. The description's context line merely repeats the parameter names without adding format, relationships, or constraints. Since the schema already documents the parameters, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('Deletes a specific description paragraph') with a specific verb and resource. The context line lists the required parameters, reinforcing what is being operated on. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like cms_delete_article_paragraph or shop_delete_paragraph_media, so it loses a point for not distinguishing alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other delete operations. The description only restates the action and lists parameters; it does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. For example, there is no note about whether this deletes the paragraph only from a product description or if it should be used instead of shop_delete_paragraph_media.

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