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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds real context beyond them: deletion is cross-dashboard in scope, irreversible "from here," and gated by a human approval card that surfaces the reason. It does not describe the return value or what happens to panels left empty, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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 destructive scope before the alternative and the skill prerequisite. Slight compression loss in "Deleted when this runs; explain it in reason," which reads telegraphically and requires the reader to infer what "it" refers to.

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 mutation with four required params and no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: scope of destruction, irreversibility, the safer alternative, the approval-reason expectation, and the required skill step. Nothing essential is left to inference.

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 all four parameters are already documented in detail, including the approval-card semantics of reason. The description only reinforces that reason should explain the deletion; it adds no new syntax, format, or constraint information beyond the schema. 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 ("Permanently delete a saved analytics query") and immediately clarifies the blast radius ("disappears from EVERY dashboard"). The final routing sentence distinguishes it from the closely named sibling remove_query_from_dashboard, so an agent can choose without inspecting either 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 an explicit when-not and the alternative: use remove_query_from_dashboard to remove from one dashboard but keep the query. It also states a precondition — load the manage-dashboards skill first — which is actionable routing guidance.

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