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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: a human-approval gate, the required confirmed=true flag, and that writes are never automatically retried. It does not say what happens if confirmed is omitted or what the response looks like, keeping it below a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the approval prerequisite, then the retry caveat. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 single-resource delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the approval workflow and retry behavior, which is what an agent most needs. The vague reference to 'credit use' and the absence of failure-mode detail are minor remaining gaps.

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 50% and the nested path object (id, file_id) is documented only in the schema, not the description. The description does explain the semantics of confirmed as tied to user approval, which adds value, but it leaves the path parameters entirely to the schema.

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 prospect file'), which is unambiguous against the delete siblings such as delete_prospects_id_photos_photo_id and delete_prospects_id_notes_note_id because the resource type differs. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the naming is precise enough to select the right tool.

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 states an invocation precondition (user approval and confirmed=true) but gives no guidance on when to choose this over sibling deletion tools or when to avoid it. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than explained.

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