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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, and the description adds destructive scope: 'remove the resources it created.' It also specifies the required input (release name). This adds useful context beyond the annotation, though it doesn't elaborate on irreversibility or edge cases, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a helpful reference. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 the presence of a full output schema, rich parameter descriptions, and annotations marking destructive behavior, the description covers the essential context: purpose, destructive scope, required input, and a pointer to a runbook. There are no obvious gaps for this tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides detailed semantics for both org (including error-handling guidance) and name ('unique, immutable identifier'). The description only restates 'Provide the release name' without adding new meaning, so 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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Uninstall a release and remove the resources it created.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_resource (general resource deletion) and install_template/upgrade_template (opposite life-cycle actions). The required input 'release name' is also mentioned.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use it (to uninstall a release) and includes a practical prerequisite: 'Recommended reading before first use: get_cpln_skill("template-catalog") — the runbook for this tool family.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, which would merit a 5, but the context is sufficient.

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