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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it discloses that the first call is non-mutating and only returns confirmation_required, summary, and confirm_token, that the second call must repeat the same arguments, that a 'confirm' boolean is ignored, and that the token is single-use and expires in 5 minutes. This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs to avoid a mis-invocation.

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?

Front-loaded with permission and action, then the confirmation mechanics in short declarative sentences. The negation stack ('does not write, delete, cancel, or send') is slightly legalistic but each sentence carries distinct, load-bearing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what the first call returns. It does not describe what the successful second call returns or how to recover from an expired token, which are minor gaps for a 2-parameter destructive tool.

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 carry the load and it does for confirm_token (source, reuse requirement, expiry, single-use). location_id is only identifiable by name — no ID-vs-name format guidance — which is the one remaining 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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an inventory location in this organization.' The resource is unambiguous against siblings like delete_stock_movement, delete_supplier, or update_stock_location, so an agent can select it without opening the 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?

It states the permission prerequisite ('Requires items.delete') and the exact two-call procedure for invoking it, which is clear context for use. It does not name alternatives (e.g., delete_stock_movement removes stock quantities rather than the location itself), so exclusions are left implicit.

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