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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: it discloses that this is a soft delete, that the function stops running within 30s, and that the deployed code bundle is preserved. That is exactly the 'what gets destroyed vs. kept' context an agent needs.

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 tight sentences with the key action front-loaded and the timing/preservation details immediately following. No filler.

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 single-param mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the crucial semantics (soft delete, 30s stop, bundle retained). It could note reversibility/restore path, which is the only notable omission.

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 0% and the single function_id parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. 'a Function' implies which entity is targeted, but no format, source, or retrieval hint is added, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Soft-delete a Function') and the 'soft' qualifier usefully distinguishes it from a hard delete. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like update_function or delete_endpoint, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as update_function (which might disable rather than delete) or other delete_* siblings. The reader must infer the usage context entirely.

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