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; the description adds genuinely new behavior: only the dashboard object is removed, its queries persist elsewhere, and the action is irreversible "from here" and takes effect immediately. It does not address repeat-invocation behavior despite the idempotent hint, which keeps it just under a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, then the irreversibility warning, then the prerequisite. The clause "Deleted when this runs; explain it in reason" is slightly compressed and awkwardly punctuated, but nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers what an agent needs for a destructive, 4-required-param call: effect scope, irreversibility, required justification, and the skill prerequisite. It does not state what a successful response looks like or how to recover from a wrong dashboardId, a minor gap for an irreversible operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so dashboardId, projectId, environment, and reason are all already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the reason parameter ("explain it in reason") without adding format or approval-card context beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 dashboard") and immediately scopes the blast radius by clarifying that saved queries survive and remain in list_queries. That distinguishes it cleanly from delete_query and delete_dashboard_folder without the agent needing to open any schema.

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 prerequisite (load the manage-dashboards skill first) and implicitly routes query-only deletions to delete_query by stating the queries are kept. It stops short of naming delete_query explicitly or saying when not to delete, so it is clear context rather than full alternative routing.

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