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

Annotations already mark it destructive, but the description adds key behavioral context: the deletion is permanent and includes all associated responses. This goes beyond the raw annotation flags to explain the cascade effect.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys everything essential without padding.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description fully covers the action, scope (including responses), and permanence. No output schema is needed for a delete operation, and nothing essential is missing.

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 only parameter survey_id is fully described in the schema with 'The survey ID to delete.' The tool description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool permanently deletes a survey and all its responses, using a specific verb (delete) and resource (survey). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_webhook and update_survey.

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 usage context is implied by the name and description—use this to permanently remove a survey—but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, nor any mention of alternative tools like update_survey for non-destructive changes.

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