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

Annotations already declare `destructiveHint: true` and `readOnlyHint: false`, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: irreversibility, a transient 429 'not yet ready' state for newly created courses, the exact HTTP endpoint, and a 204/null success response. This goes well beyond what annotations provide and helps the agent handle edge cases correctly.

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 repeats key facts: 'IRREVERSIBLE' appears twice, and the 429 'not yet ready' rate-limit behavior is stated twice in slightly different words. This redundancy wastes space and dilutes the front-loaded warning, failing the 'every sentence should earn its place' test.

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 a single-parameter destructive delete with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the crucial behavioral details: irreversibility, rate-limit retry guidance, endpoint, and response code. It lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or permissions, but is otherwise complete for correct invocation.

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% with a single `courseId` parameter documented as 'Numeric id'. The description embeds `{courseId}` in the endpoint path but adds no further meaning, format, or constraints beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 operation via `DELETE /course-service/course/{courseId}`, making it clear this deletes a course. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like `update_course` or `get_course`, but the HTTP method and resource are unambiguous.

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 includes a critical usage warning: 'IRREVERSIBLE: confirm with the user before calling.' It also notes a transient 429 condition after creation and advises retrying shortly. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., `update_course`), so usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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