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

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent, but the description goes further by naming what is actually destroyed (access propagation through roles, other rules, or grants), the UI surface it mirrors, and the auth level required. The confirm protocol is behavioral detail the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then consequence, permissions, and the confirm ritual in tight sequence. Every clause carries weight, though the ordering of the confirm instructions is slightly dense for a single long sentence.

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-param destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, permission gate, and safety protocol. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and avoid an unauthorized destructive action.

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 is 3; the description adds the semantics of the confirm flag beyond the schema's one-liner by describing it as the point of consent after showing the person the consequence sentence. It does not add anything for ruleId beyond the schema's reference to list_access_rules.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Deletes a rule') and immediately scopes the effect ('the people it reached lose that access unless a role, another rule or a grant gives it'). This separates it cleanly from siblings like preview_access_rule, list_access_rules, and update_access_rule.

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 the permission requirement (Owner or Admin) and prescribes the call flow: call without confirm first, present the consequence sentence to the person, then pass confirm: true only on agreement. This is a concrete when/how-and-with-what-gate, not an implied usage.

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