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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses the cascading deletion of every widget, the irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), and the preview behavior when confirm is not set. This gives the agent critical behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the destructive scope, the second explains the preview/confirm flow, and the third emphasizes irreversibility. It is front-loaded and concise with no 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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what will be deleted, the confirmation safeguard, and permanence. The schema handles the parameter details, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters including confirm and confirmName. The description reinforces the confirm behavior but does not add meaning beyond the schema; baseline 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 specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a view and every widget on it.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_widget, delete_dashboard, and update_view by stating the exact scope of destruction.

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 implies when to use the tool via its resource scope, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it doesn't say 'use delete_widget to remove only a widget.' The confirmation flow is described, but not the selection among sibling delete operations.

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