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

Goes well beyond the annotations: clarifies that the first call performs no write/delete/cancel/send, that the token expires in 5 minutes and is single-use, and that a `confirm` boolean is ignored. This is exactly the extra behavioral context destructiveHint alone cannot convey.

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?

Permission requirement is front-loaded, then purpose, then the two-step protocol. Every sentence carries distinct operational information with no repetition or 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 destructive two-param tool with no output schema, it describes what the first call returns (confirmation_required, summary, confirm_token) but not what the successful second call returns or what happens on token expiry/reuse failure. Minor gap, otherwise complete.

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%, so the description carries the load — and it explains confirm_token's semantics thoroughly (two-step, expiry, one-time use) and warns off a `confirm` boolean. Only supplier_id is left unexplained, though its meaning is self-evident.

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 ("Delete a supplier") plus the required permission scope ("Requires items.delete"). It is unambiguous against siblings like delete_customer or delete_item by virtue of the named resource, though it never explicitly contrasts with update_supplier or any alternative.

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 clear, actionable invocation guidance: first call omits confirm_token and is non-destructive, second call repeats the same arguments plus the token. It does not discuss when deletion is the right choice versus alternatives (e.g. update_supplier), so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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