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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real substance: the blast radius spans containers on every server and volumes including their data, and it warns of an interactive approval gate. That is meaningful context beyond the safety flags, though it omits reversibility and whether approval can be bypassed.

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?

Two tight sentences with the destructive verb and scope front-loaded, then the approval caveat. No filler, though the phrasing 'a leftover no Environment owns' reads awkwardly and costs a little clarity.

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 multi-server teardown with no output schema, the description covers the what and the approval flow but leaves gaps: the accept_volume_loss parameter needed to authorize data loss is unexplained, and the approval round-trip is only hinted at rather than described end-to-end.

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 only 40%: only 'leftover' and 'approval' are described in the schema, while 'version', 'request_key', and 'accept_volume_loss' are bare. The description mentions data loss on volumes but never ties it to accept_volume_loss or explains request_key's idempotency role, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Delete) and resource (a leftover no Environment owns), then enumerates the scope: containers on every server plus volumes with their data. That precision lets an agent distinguish it from sibling teardown tools like environment_remove or volume_remove, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'a leftover no Environment owns' and by the approval hint. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as discard or environment_remove, so the agent must infer the trigger condition.

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