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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description details the full extent of destruction: all versions, run records, anonymous run records are removed, no recovery path. It also covers edge cases like platform-managed generators surfacing as NotFound and no confirmation token needed. These behaviors are not apparent from annotations alone.

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 well-organized: begins with the primary action, then covers permanence, alternatives, constraints, edge cases, and return value. While detailed, every sentence adds unique information, with no superfluous content. It is slightly lengthy but efficient for the complexity.

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?

The description comprehensively covers the tool's context: scope, irreversibility, alternative, conflict conditions, edge cases for system generators, return format, and backup retention policy. Given the tool's destructive nature and with an output schema indicated, the description is fully 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?

The single parameter generator_id is described in the schema as a UUID, and the description adds that it accepts a UUID string, which is not explicitly in the schema format. It also clarifies the scope constraint (own generator) beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100% and the description adds practical context, a score of 4 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 tool 'permanently and immediately erase an image generator you own' with specific verb 'erase' and resource 'image generator'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'revoke_image_generator', which is explicitly mentioned as an alternative.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use vs. revoke: 'Use revoke_image_generator if you want to deactivate the generator without erasing it'. Also mentions prerequisite about unpublishing template versions that reference the generator, providing clear conditions for successful invocation.

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