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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a specific failure mode (422 with existing domains) and an auth requirement (`full_access` key). It does not spell out permanence/irreversibility of the deletion, so it isn't fully exhaustive.

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 core statement, the 422 precondition, and the auth requirement are all front-loaded and short. The trailing API/operationId line is useful for API parity but is boilerplate that doesn't help an agent decide or invoke.

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 single-parameter destructive tool, the definition covers purpose, prerequisite ordering, and auth, and annotations cover the safety semantics. No output schema exists, and for a delete the only missing detail is whether anything is returned or whether deletion is immediate vs. scheduled — a minor gap.

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% — the single `ref` parameter is already documented in the schema as 'the tenant id or your own external_id', with examples and length bounds. The description adds nothing about `ref` and doesn't need to; baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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 and resource ('Delete a tenant') and pins it to the concrete API operation `DELETE /tenants/{ref}` (operationId `deleteTenant`). The verb+resource pair is unambiguous against siblings like delete_domain, delete_api_key, or pause_tenant, though it never explicitly says how it differs from those.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition: it fails with `422` while the tenant still has domains, and instructs to delete those first — effectively telling the agent a prerequisite call to make before this one. It also states the `full_access` API key requirement. No explicit alternative (e.g. pause_tenant vs delete_tenant) is offered, so it stops short of a 5.

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