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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered upstream. The description's real contribution is the non-obvious side effect that series data is preserved; it does not say whether dashboard versions, annotations, or alerts attached to the dashboard are also removed, nor whether the deletion is reversible.

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?

One short sentence, verb first, with the qualifier placed where it matters most. Nothing redundant and nothing padded.

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 one-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already flag destructiveness and idempotency, the description covers the essential behavioral surprise (series retained). Only minor gaps remain: fate of attached versions/alerts and whether the action can be undone.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The schema's own description ("id") is terse, and the tool description adds nothing about where dashboard_id comes from (e.g., list_dashboards) or its format.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Delete a dashboard") with a scope clarification that distinguishes it from delete_series — series data survives. It does not, however, distinguish itself from other delete_* siblings (delete_job, delete_annotations) or from update_dashboard beyond the verb.

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: the parenthetical signals that this removes the dashboard container but not the underlying series, which implicitly routes data-removal intent to delete_series. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no pointer to list_dashboards for obtaining an id.

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