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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: what resources are destroyed, that the deployment disappears from list_deployments, that the commit stays in the timeline, delayed space reclamation via promote/registry cleanup, rebuild-on-next-deploy behavior, and the read-write token requirement.

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 critical 'destructive and irreversible' warning is front-loaded and nearly every sentence carries behavioral information. However, it is one dense unbroken paragraph with a couple of hard-to-parse clauses (the keep_image/stop-release sentence mixes kept and removed resources), which slows scanning of a destructive tool.

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 destructive 3-parameter tool with an output schema already present, this covers everything an agent needs: prerequisites, refusals, side effects, deferred storage reclamation, and recovery paths. No material gap remains.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine meaning the schema lacks — notably the counterintuitive consequence that keep_data=true removes only the build image, and that either single-resource choice preserves the commit in the timeline. It does not state defaults as clearly as the schema, but it is still additive.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource plus a safety qualifier ('Destructive and irreversible. Deletes a commit's data, build image, or both (by job_id)'). The scope is precise enough to separate it from siblings like stop_commit, demote_commit, and rollback_commit without consulting their schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when to choose each mode: keep_image for keeping the commit deployable, keep_data for removing only the build image, and the prerequisite 'stop the release first, including sleeping releases'. It also names the hard exclusions ('Refuses the canonical commit and both keep options together'), which is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs.

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