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

Annotations already carry the destructive profile (destructiveHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds value beyond that by specifying what gets destroyed — the watch plus its associated automations — and by clarifying permanence ('This action is irreversible'), which is more specific than a generic destructive flag.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: core action plus side effect, irreversibility warning, and alternative routing. The core behavior is front-loaded with zero 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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations already covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, side effects, permanence, and the key alternative. It is missing only minor details such as behavior on a nonexistent watchId or the expected response, which are not critical for a simple delete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. Although watchId is not explicitly documented, 'Deletes a competitor watch' makes the parameter's semantic role unambiguous: watchId identifies which competitor watch to delete. For a single, trivially inferable string parameter this is sufficient compensation.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a competitor watch') and discloses the key side effect ('disables its associated automations'). It also names the sibling that does something different (pause), so an agent can distinguish delete from pause without inspecting schemas.

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 explicitly routes the agent: 'Use campaignstack_pause_competitor_watch to temporarily stop monitoring instead,' establishing when-not (temporary cases) and naming the exact alternative. The contrast with the pause sibling makes the permanent-deletion use case unambiguous.

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