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

Beyond destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, it discloses the non-obvious downstream effect: linked saved queries keep rendering the last version with a warning until someone detaches them. It also states that deletion happens immediately when this runs and that the reason string is user-facing on the approval card.

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, with the permanent-deletion fact front-loaded and the prerequisites following in order. The clause "Deleted when this runs; explain it in reason" is slightly compressed but not wasted.

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 no output schema, the definition covers consequences, side effects on dependents, verification steps and a required skill load. With all four parameters fully described in the schema and safety hints in annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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%, so formulaId, projectId, environment and reason are already documented in the schema. The description only adds a light nudge to explain the deletion in reason, which largely restates the schema's own wording about the approval card.

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?

"Permanently delete a saved formula" gives a specific verb plus resource and makes the contrast with update_saved_formula obvious from the name alone. The word "permanently" signals irreversibility right away.

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?

It prescribes concrete preconditions before calling: verify the formula by name and count dependent queries via list_saved_formulas with formulaId, and load the insight-queries skill first. It does not state when a caller should instead use update_saved_formula or detach queries rather than delete, so the alternative path is implied rather than spelled out.

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