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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: runs referencing the build retain their results (non-cascading delete) and a pinning test blocks deletion entirely. It does not say whether deletion is reversible or what error surfaces on a blocked delete.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the two behavioral caveats. Every clause carries distinct information.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations declaring destructiveness and no output schema, the description covers the main side effects and the blocking precondition. The remaining gap is failure/reversibility semantics, which is minor given the surrounding coverage.

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?

There is a single buildId parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries its meaning. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline at full coverage.

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 build') that matches the title and is unambiguous against sibling delete_* tools targeting other resources. It falls short of 5 only because it does not explicitly contrast itself with anything else.

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?

The sentence 'a build a test pins cannot be deleted' gives an implicit precondition that gates correct invocation, which is more than nothing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, such as when to remove a build rather than leave it.

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