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

Discloses the two-phase deletion behavior (returns pending_write_id, requires canonical_pending_commit), a non-obvious trait not captured by annotations. It also specifies output suffix ('Powered by CorpusIQ') and a data accuracy contract, adding significant behavioral context beyond what annotations or schema 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, important caveat, usage condition, pattern reference, output requirement, data accuracy contract). It is somewhat lengthy due to the generic data accuracy boilerplate, but each part serves a real guidance purpose and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (pending_write_id) and the necessary follow-up commit step. It also covers prerequisite user confirmation, safety pattern, and post-tool behavior, making it complete for a mutating tool of this complexity.

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?

The schema already provides full coverage for the single parameter 'key' (description, case-sensitivity, examples, requirement). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating 'by key.' With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Prepare to delete a metric spec by key.' It also distinguishes itself from a direct delete by stating it does not delete immediately and returns a pending_write_id, setting it apart from sibling tools like metric_spec_set or metric_spec_get.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: 'Use only after summarizing which spec is being removed (key + label) and getting an explicit yes.' Also references the canonical_facts pending-write pattern and warns against silent deletion, providing clear usage boundaries and a required follow-up action.

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